Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Case Number: 21STCV08410, Date: 2024-07-18 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 April 29, 2024 Final Arbitration Award against Defendants Ted Rosenblatt and PFG Entertainment.

Plaintiff Sittler Law Group (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendants Ted Rosenblatt, Marisa Rosenblatt, and PFG Entertainment (collectively, “Defendants”) and Does 1 through 10 arising out of a failure to pay legal fees incurred through legal representation.

On September 07, 2021, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants for the following causes of action:

On August 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration which the court GRANTED.

On May 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award.

On May 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed Notice of Hearing on Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award.

“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, Plaintiff complied with CCP § 1285.4 First, Plaintiff set forth the arbitration clause in the Petition and also attached a copy of the arbitration agreement. (Petition, Exhibit 4-C.) Second, Plaintiff identified Hon. Gerald Rosenberg, Ret. as the arbitrator. (Petition, ¶6.) Third, Plaintiff attached a copy of the Arbitration Award. (Petition, Exhibit 8-C.)

(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, Plaintiff complied with CCP § 1290.4. Plaintiff served a copy of the Petition and Notice of Hearing via e-mail to counsel. (Proof of Service filed with Notice of Hearing and Petition.) While the Arbitration Agreement does not provide for the method of service, the court is inclined to accept e-mail service as sufficient. Notably, the arbitration administrator served the Final Arbitration Award via e-mail, U.S. Mail, and certified mail. (See Final Arbitration Award Proof of Service, Petition, Exhibit 8-C.) This indicates to the court that the parties agreed to accept service of documents via e-mail. Additionally, counsel previously served other documents via e-mail. (See, e.g., Defendants’ proof of service filed September 24, 2021, with Objection to Plaintiff’s Evidence Filed with Reply In Support of Motion to Compel Arbitration.[2])

Accordingly, the service requirement of the Petition and Notice of Hearing is met.

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.)¿¿

Here, the Arbitrator complied with CCP § 1283.6. As noted above, the arbitration administrator served the Final Arbitration Award via e-mail, U.S. Mail, and certified mail. (See Final Arbitration Award Proof of Service, Petition, Exhibit 8-C.)

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.)¿¿

Here, Plaintiff’s Petition is timely. The Final Award was issued on April 29, 2024. (Petition, Exhibit 8-C.) Plaintiff filed this Petition on May 22, 2024 which is more than 10 days after service of the Final Award and well within four years of its issuance.

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.)¿¿

Here, Plaintiff has demonstrated that on April 29, 2024, the arbitrator issued an Arbitration Award in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants Ted Rosenblatt and PFG Entertainment for $136,339.08. (Petition, Exhibit 8-C.) Plaintiff presented no evidence that this Award applies to Defendant Marisa Rosenblatt and the Petition is for Defendants Ted Rosenblatt and PFG Entertainment only.

[1] The substitution of attorney for Defendant PFG Entertainment is invalid as it purports to substitute a non-attorney to represent a corporate entity.

[2] The court can take judicial notice of its own record. (See Starr v. Ashbrook (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 999, 1014.)