Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 24STCP00541, Date: 2024-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 24STCP00541, Date: 2024-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP00541 Hearing Date: April 25, 2024 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: April 25, 2024 TRIAL DATE: N/A

CASE: Elaine Schock v. Farmers Ins. Exchange

CASE NO.: 24STCP00541

(1) PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

(2) MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING COSTS OF PROOF

MOVING PARTY: (1)(2) Petitioner Elaine Schock

RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1) No response on eCourt as of 4/22/24; (2)

CASE HISTORY:

· 02/20/24: Petition to confirm arbitration award filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is an uninsured motorist action. Petitioner sustained injuries to her sternum and wrists in a car accident. Petitioner’s claim proceeded to arbitration, in which the arbitrator awarded Petitioner damages in the amount of $189,000.

Petitioner seeks an order confirming the arbitration award and an order awarding costs of proof on three requests for admissions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is CONTINUED to May 15, 2024 at 9:00 AM.

The Motion for Order Awarding Costs of Proof is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

Petitioner seeks an order confirming an arbitration award.

Any party to an arbitration award may petition the court to confirm, correct, or vacate the award. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1285.) “If a petition or response under this chapter is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made, whether rendered in this state or another state, unless in accordance with this chapter it corrects the award and confirms it as corrected, vacates the award or dismisses the proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1286, bold emphasis added.) A petition to confirm a binding arbitration must name as respondents all parties to the arbitration and may name any other parties to be bound by the award. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1285.) The petition shall (1) set forth the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate unless petitioner denies the existence of such an agreement; (2) set forth the name(s) of the arbitrator(s); and (3) set forth or have attached a copy of the award and written opinion of the arbitrator. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1285.4(a)-(c).)

The petition to confirm must be served and filed no later than four years after the date of service of a signed copy of the award on the petitioner (Code Civ. Proc. § 1288) but may not be served and filed until at least 10 days after service of the signed copy of the award upon the petitioner. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1288.4.) A freestanding petition must be served in the same manner as a summons and complaint. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1290, 1290.4.)

Here, all parties to the arbitration are named in the petition. (Petition p.2:2-4.) The agreement to arbitrate is attached to the Petition. (Exh. 1.) The name of the arbitrator, the Hon. Patricia Schnegg (ret.), is set forth in the Petition. (Petition p.2:7.)

A copy of the executed arbitration award, dated January 25, 2024 is also attached to the petition and was served on Respondent on February 5, 2024. (Petition Exh. 2.) The petition to confirm was filed on February 20, 2024, and served the next day on February 21, 2024 by email. (See Proof of Service.) These dates are all within four years from the date the award was served and more than ten days after the award was served. That said, the Petition was not served in the same manner as a summons and complaint, as a summons and complaint may only be served by personal service, substitute service, service by mail, or service by publication. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 415.10; 415.20; 415.30; 415.50; 1290.4.) However, Respondent filed and served an opposition to the pending Motion for Costs of Proof, addressed infra, on April 8, 2024. (Proof of Service in Opposition filed 4/8/24.) That opposition does not object to the petition as improperly served. A defendant (or respondent) makes a general appearance when that party “takes a part in the particular action which in some manner recognizes the authority of the court to proceed.” (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147; accord. Sierra Club. v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 162, 171.) As Respondent appears to have done just that, the Court finds that the Petition to Confirm was filed and served in accordance with the time limit set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1288.

No petition to vacate or correct the award has been filed. A petition to vacate an award or correct an award must be served and filed no later than 100 days after the date of service of a signed copy of the award on the party petitioning to vacate or correct the award. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1288.) The Court may not correct or vacate an award unless a petition or response requesting that the award be corrected or vacated has been filed. (See, e.g., Valsan Partners Ltd. P’ship v. Calcor Space Facility, Inc. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 809, 818.) The time to petition to vacate or correct the award here does not expire until May 15, 2024.

As the time to vacate or correct the award has not yet expired, the Court finds it appropriate to continue this motion until after the last day to vacate or correct the award, so as to avoid the Court entering an order that must subsequently be corrected or vacated. The Court therefore continues this motion to May 15, 2024, at 9:00 AM. As the current petition meets all the statutory requirements, if no petition to vacate or correct the award is filed by that date, the petition will be confirmed on that date. In the event a petition to correct or vacate the award is filed, the Court will reschedule the hearing on this matter so both petitions may be heard simultaneously.

Motion for Order Awarding Costs of Proof

Petitioner also moves for an order awarding the costs of proof incurred to establish facts set forth in three requests for admissions.

Legal Standard for Costs of Proof

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420 states:

If a party fails to admit the genuineness of any document or the truth of any matter when requested to do so under this chapter, and if the party requesting that admission thereafter proves the genuineness of that document or the truth of that matter, the party requesting the admission may move the court for an order requiring the party to whom the request was directed to pay the reasonable expenses incurred in making that proof, including reasonable attorney's fees.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.420(a).) Pursuant to subdivision (b), the Court “shall” issue the order unless it finds (1) an objection to the request was sustained or a response to it was waived pursuant to section 2033.290; (2) the admission sought was of no substantial importance; (3) the party failing to make the admission had reasonable ground to believe that party would prevail on the matter; or (4) there was other good reason for the failure to admit. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.420(b).) The burden to prove the existence of an exception lies with the party who did not make the admission. (Samsky v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 517, 523-24 [trial court erred in placing burden of proving non-existence of exception on moving party in uninsured motorist action].) A party may not rely on their own “belief” to assert a denial when faced with substantial contrary evidence. (Grace v. Mansourian (2013) 240 Cal.App.4^th 523, 530-32.) However, a party’s reliance on its own evidence can constitute reasonable grounds to deny a request. (Orange County Water Dist. v. The Arnold Engineering Co. (2018) 31 Cal.App.5^th 96, 116-17, 124.)

Entitlement to Costs

Petitioner contends she is entitled to the costs of proof to establish matters stated in three requests for admissions propounded to Respondent.

On July 14, 2022, Petitioner served requests for admissions on Respondent, including Requests Nos. 10, 11, and 13 which are at issue on this motion. (Petitioner’s Exh. 2.) These requests are set forth below:

Request No. 10: Admit that Elaine Schock sprained both wrists in the INCIDENT.

Request No. 11: Admit that Elaine Schock has required injections into both wrists because of the INCIDENT;

. . .

Request No. 13: Admit that all of Elaine Schock’s medical treatment to date for the INCIDENT has been reasonable.

(Petitioner’s Exh. 2 Nos. 10, 11, 13.) “INCIDENT” as defined in the requests refers to “the collision between Elaine Shock [sic] and Micaela Rabinowitz, in their respective vehicles, at the intersection of Ventura Boulevard and Del Moreno Drive, on November 15, 2021.” (Id. p.2:2-4.)

Respondent served responses on September 14, 2022 which denied these specific requests as follows:

Response No. 10: Deny. The claimant appears to have sustained only a bruise to her left wrist.

Response No. 11: Deny. Claimant appears to have sustained only a bruised left wrist from the INCIDENT.

. . .

Response No. 13: Respondent admits Elaine’s medical treatment to date has been reasonable to treat her preexisting and traumatically induced injuries, but denies that all of the treatment was necessary. Respondent denies that the treatment to her follow up treatments and surgery to her left wrist, and treatment to the right wrist were related to the incident.

(Petitioner’s Exh. 3. Nos. 10, 11, 13.) The arbitrator determined that the nature and extent of Petitioner’s injuries stemming from the accident was the “sole issue for consideration,” and the main dispute was whether her injuries to her thumbs and wrists were caused by osteoarthritis or by the accident. (Petition Exh. 2 pp. 5:25; 6:9-10.) The arbitrator concluded that the accident caused her injuries. (Id. p.7:24-25.)

Respondent contends that, at the time the requests were propounded, the emergency room records dated November 15, 2021 indicated that Petitioner had only bruised her left wrist and was not suffering any ongoing pain. (Respondent’s Exh. B.) Respondent’s counsel states that as of September 14, 2022, discovery “was still in the early stages,” and there had been no expert depositions or independent medical examination. (Declaration of Marvin Velastegui ISO Opp. ¶ 2.) Petitioner fails to reckon with this argument in reply beyond characterizing Respondent’s position as a “muddled rehash.” The relevant inquiry on a motion of this nature is whether “the party who denied for lack of information or belief had access to the information [confirming the fact] at the time requests for admissions were propounded.” (Bloxham v. Saldinger (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 729, 752 as modified on denial of reh’g August 27, 2014; rev. denied October 15, 2014 [internal citations omitted; emphasis added].) Whether Respondent had a valid basis to maintain its position later is not at issue, only whether it had reason to believe in its position on September 14, 2022. Petitioner’s citation to Grace v. Mansourian is misplaced. That case concerned a personal injury action arising from a vehicle collision in which the defendant ran a red light and struck the plaintiff’s vehicle. (Grace, supra, 240 Cal.App.4th at 526.) The defendant denied a request for admission that the light was red based on nothing but his own belief that the light was yellow, contrary to all other evidence. (Id. at 526-27, 530.) The Court of Appeal concluded that the defendant’s belief was not reasonably held, regardless of its sincerity. (Id. at 530.)

Here, however, Respondent does not cite subjective belief but to documentary evidence supporting its position at the time. (Respondent’s Exh. B.) More critically, the defendant in Grace reasserted his denial twice in supplemental responses, including once on the eve of trial. (Id. at 527.) Thus, in Grace, the issue was not merely whether the defendant’s position was sound at the outset but whether it was sound on the eve of trial. In this case, on the other hand, no supplemental requests nor responses were served, and so the question is only whether Respondent had reason to believe it would prevail on its position on September 14, 2022, not whether that belief remained reasonable thereafter. The Court finds Respondent’s showing supports its reasonable belief at that time.

Because the Court finds that Respondent has demonstrated that it had a reasonable ground for its denials on September 14, 2022, the Court finds that an award of costs is not proper.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, the Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is CONTINUED to May 15, 2024 at 9:00 AM.

The Motion for Order Awarding Costs of Proof is DENIED.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 25, 2024 ___________________________________

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.