Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 21STCV32413, Date: 2025-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV32413, Date: 2025-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV32413 Hearing Date: February 14, 2025 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: February 14, 2025 TRIAL DATE: Not set.

CASE: Uddin v. Nabi

CASE NO.: 21STCV32413

Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award and Enforce Settlement Agreement

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Nasir Uddin

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None

CASE HISTORY:

· 9/1/21: Complaint filed.

· 10/18/21: Cross-Complaint filed.

· 1/13/25: Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award Filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On September 1, 2021, Plaintiff Nasir Uddin filed a complaint for partition.

Plaintiff seeks a court-ordered partition by sale of a jointly owned multiunit residential property in Los Angeles, which Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, Libi Nabi, has refused to sell or buy out Plaintiff’s share. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is mismanaging the property by failing to pay the mortgage and not collecting rental income from tenants. The property was transferred in 2017 to Plaintiff and Defendant as joint tenants, each holding a one-half interest. It is currently encumbered by a Deed of Trust securing a $562,000 loan, with an estimated outstanding balance of $540,000. Plaintiff estimates the property’s market value exceeds $900,000 after sale costs. Plaintiff requested Defendant to buy out Plaintiff’s equity, conduct an accounting, and collect rental income to pay the mortgage, but Defendant refused. Plaintiff asserts an absolute right to partition and seeks an accounting to allocate ownership interests properly.

On October 18, 2021, Cross-Complainant Lipi Nabi filed a cross-complaint for imposition of resulting trust and quiet title.

On January 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award.

To date, no opposition has been filed.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION:

Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

I. Legal Standard

“Regardless of the particular relief granted, any arbitrator’s award is enforceable only when confirmed as a judgment of the superior court.” (O’Hare v. Municipal Resource Consultants (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 267, 278.) “Once a petition to confirm an award is filed, the superior court must select one of only four courses of action: it may confirm the award, correct and confirm it, vacate it, or dismiss the petition.” (EHM Productions, Inc. v. Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1063.) “It is well settled that the scope of judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely narrow.” (California Faculty Assn. v. Superior Court (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 935, 943.) “Neither the trial court, nor the appellate court, may ‘review the merits of the dispute, the sufficiency of the evidence, or the arbitrator’s reasoning, nor may we correct or review an award because of an arbitrator’s legal or factual error, even if it appears on the award’s face.” (EHM Productions, supra, at p. 1063-64.)

A. Filing Requirements (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4)

Code of Civil Procedure, section 1285.4 states: “A petition under this chapter shall:

(a) Set forth the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate unless the petitioner denies the existence of such an agreement.

(b) Set forth the names of the arbitrators.

Petitioner submits a copy of the Mediation Agreement, the terms of which were reduced in writing and signed by both parties. (Pet., Ogbogu Decl. ¶4, Exhib. 1.) Petitioner’s attorney declares that on October 13, 2022, in furtherance of both parties’ desire to resolve this matter, the parties engaged in a mediation before David M. Karen of Judicate West. The issue of accounting was submitted to arbitration for resolution. Both parties agreed on William J. Caplan of Judicate West as the arbitrator. (Id. ¶5.) A hearing took place on December 19 and 20, 2023, during which the parties stipulated that the Dewey Property was valued at $800,000. (Id.) The arbitrator was responsible for conducting an accounting of the expenses and contributions made by both parties. Final arguments and briefings were submitted on March 11, 2024. (Id.)

Thus, the filing requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1285.4 have been satisfied.

B. Service of the Arbitration Award & Timeliness of Petition (CCP §§ 1283.6, 1288, 1288.4)

Code of Civil Procedure section 1283.6 provides that: “The neutral arbitrator shall serve a signed copy of the award on each party to the arbitration personally or by registered or certified mail or as provided in the agreement.” (Emphasis added.) Here, the arbitration award is accompanied by a letter from the AAA, dated November 4, 2020, indicating the award was served on the parties via email but does not include a proof of service. (Pet., Attach. 8(c).) However, “the sole function of the service of an award upon the parties to an arbitration is to give them notice of the existence and contents of the award.” (Murray v. Civil Service Emp. Ins. Co., supra, at p. 799-800.) The Court finds that function was satisfied here, and Respondent has not filed an opposition demonstrating otherwise.

In addition, a party may seek a court judgment confirming an arbitration award by filing and serving a petition no more than four years, but not less than 10 days, after the award is served. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1288, 1288.4.) Here, Petitioner filed this Petition initially on November 18, 2024, more than ten days and less than four years, after it was initially served on June 26, 2024.

Thus, Petitioner has satisfied the requirements of Sections 1283.6, 1288, and 1288.4.

C. Service of the Petition, and Notice of Hearing (Code Civ. Proc., §1290.4)

Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4, the statute governing proper service of this Petition states, in pertinent part:

“(a) A copy of the petition and a written notice of the time and place of the hearing thereof and any other papers upon which the petition is based shall be served in the manner provided in the arbitration agreement for the service of such petition and notice.

(b) If the arbitration agreement does not provide the manner in which such service shall be made and the person upon whom service is to be made has not previously appeared in the proceeding and has not previously been served in accordance with this subdivision: ¶ (1) Service within this State shall be made in the manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action.

On January 13, 2025, Petitioner filed a proof of service declaring that Respondent was electronically served with the petition and notice of hearing on February 14, 2025. (1/13/25 Amended Not of Hearing on Pet, Proof of Service.)

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice, unless waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2025 ___________________________________

Theresa M. Traber

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.