Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Case Number: 20STCV45719, Date: 2024-01-17 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.

If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.

2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

1. An Order Confirming the October 4, 2023 Arbitration Award for $144,863.33 in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff;

On November 30, 2020, Plaintiff Francis Yee-Hong Wong (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendants Keystone Law Group, P.C.; Joshua D. Taylor; Samuel L. Birdsong; and Sarah Ragatz nee Spacht (Defendants) with two causes of action for: (1) Legal Malpractice, and (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty.

According to the Complaint, Plaintiff retained Defendants to represent him in a trust litigation matter. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants breached their fiduciary duty to him by overbilling for their services and refused to continue work on his matter unless he signed a Deed of Trust to real property located at 5059 Kimball Street, Los Angeles, California 90032. Plaintiff further alleges that he entered into a settlement agreement at Defendants’ direction while continuing to overcharge for services.

On August 27, 2021, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration, which the court granted on November 15, 2021.

On August 29, 2023, an arbitration hearing proceeded remotely in Los Angeles before the Hon. Mary Thornton House (ret.).

On November 14, 2023, Defendants filed an Amended Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award.

On January 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to continue the hearing on the Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award. At that hearing, the court continued the hearing from January 5, 2024 to January 17, 2024. The court also ordered Plaintiff to file and serve an opposition no later than 12:00 p.m. on January 12, 2024. Defendants would be allowed to reply orally at the hearing.

“Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award. The petition shall name as respondent all parties to the arbitration and may name as respondents any other persons bound by the arbitration award.” (Code Civ. Proc., (CCP) § 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.” (CCP § 1286.)

Filing Requirements of a Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (CCP § 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.¿

c. Set forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any.”¿

Here, Keystone identified the arbitration agreement and set forth the terms of the arbitration provision. (Petition at item 4.) The arbitrator was the Hon. Mary Thornton House (ret.). (Petition at item 6.) Finally, Keystone attached a copy of the arbitration award.

(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.¿

Here, Defendants’ proof of service indicates that served notice of hearing and a copy of the Amended Petition to Plaintiff while she was pro per via e-mail. There is no indication that the arbitration agreement allows service via e-mail because the quoted portion of the agreement does not say so.[1] Service of a summons cannot be via e-mail. (CCP § 415.10 [personal service]; CCP § 415.20 [substituted service by U.S. Mail]; CCP § 415.30 [service by mail].) Defendants’ proof of service is also problematic because self-represented litigants are exempt from mandatory electronic filing and service requirements. (Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, Local Rules, rule 3.4(b).) However, the court notes that the email addresses were used by Plaintiff in the arbitration proceedings. (See, e.g., Exhibit B.) The court is therefore inclined to believe that the parties agreed to electronic service.

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.”¿This requirement may be satisfied by service by the arbitrator or upon proper service of the Award with the Petition. (See Murry v. Civil Service Employees Ins. Co. (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 796, 799-800.)

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. (CCP §§ 1288, 1288.4.)

Defendants filed the instant petition approximately 41 days after service of the Award, making it timely under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1288 and 1288.4.¿¿

The court must confirm the award as made, unless it corrects or vacates the award, or dismisses the proceeding.¿ (CCP § 1286; Valsan Partners Limited Partnership v. Calcor Space Facility, Inc. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 809, 818.)

Defendants have demonstrated that on October 4, 2023, the arbitrator issued an Arbitration Award in their favor and against Plaintiff in the amount of $144,863.33.[2]

[1] Defendants’ indicated they attached a copy of the arbitration agreement as Attachment 4b, but the court does not see such an attachment included with the Amended Petition.

[2] This total includes the arbitrator’s award of interest and arbitration costs. The court does not see authority or supporting documentation in the Amended Petition to the extent that Defendants seek additional interests or costs.