Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCP02189, Date: 2025-02-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP02189    Hearing Date: February 26, 2025    Dept: 45

DECAROLIS FAMILY LAW GROUP, APC V. SONJA BECKER-GOOCH

PETITION TO CONFIRM ATTORNEY-CLIENT FEE ARBITRATION AWARD

Date of Hearing:          February 26, 2025                               Trial Date:       None set.

Department:               45                                                        Case No.:         24STCP02189

Moving Party:             Petitioner DeCarolis Family Law Group, APC  

Responding Party:       None  

BACKGROUND

On July 10, 2024, Petitioner DeCarolis Family Law Group, APC (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition to Confirm Attorney-Client Fee Arbitration Award (the “Petition”). According to the Petition, an arbitration occurred on April 12, 2024, via Zoom videoconference before Arbitrators Diane Dykema, Esq.; Vivien Cienfuegos Ide, Esq.; and Ann Garry. (Petition, ¶¶ 4-5.) An arbitration award was made on June 25, 2024, which requires Respondent Sonja Becker-Gooch (“Respondent”) to pay Petitioner the amount of $300,000, less $2,500 for their share of the fee arbitration filing fee (a total of $297,500), plus interest at the rate of ten percent per annum as of the date of the award. (Petition, ¶ 6(a)-(b).)

A copy of the arbitration award is attached as Attachment 6(c) to the Petition. Petitioner requests that the Court confirm the arbitration award and enter judgment according thereto. (Petition, ¶ 10(a).) Petitioner also requests interest at the rate of ten percent from June 25, 2024, and costs in the amount of $435.00. (Petition, ¶ 10(d)-(f).) The Petition was “filed after an attorney-client fee arbitration conducted under Business and Professions Code sections 6200-6206.” (Petition, ¶ 2.)

On July 29, 2024, Petitioner filed and served a Notice of Hearing on the Petition, which set forth a hearing date of August 27, 2024 on the Petition, as well as copy of the Petition. (See 07/29/24 Notice of Hearing.)

On August 26, 2024, pursuant to a request made by Petitioner, the hearing on the Petition was rescheduled from August 27, 2024, to February 26, 2025. (See Register of Actions.)

On December 27, 2024, this action was reassigned from the Honorable Mel Red Recana to the Honorable Virginia Keeny sitting in Department 45 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse effective January 3, 2025. Petitioner was ordered to give notice.

On January 14, 2025, via electronic service, Petitioner served Respondent with the Petition, Civil Case Cover Sheet, Notice of Hearing on the Petition, and Notice of Case Reassignment. (See 01/24/25 Proof of Service.)

Initially, the Court notes that there is no indication that Petitioner provided Respondent with notice of the February 26, 2025 hearing date. Based on a review of the January 14, 2025 proof of service, Petitioner appears to have electronically served Respondent with a notice of hearing setting forth the now moot August 27, 2024 hearing date. Petitioner did not file a notice of continuance as to the Petition and the Court assumes that Respondent was not properly notified of the February 26, 2025 hearing date.

[Tentative] Ruling

The Court CONTINUES the hearing on the Petition to Thursday, April 3, 2025, at 8:30 AM in this department so that Petitioner can provide proper notice of the hearing to Respondent.

LEGAL STANDARD

“The MFAA was enacted in 1978 to address the concern that fee disputes constituted the most serious problem between attorneys and their clients.” (Giorgianni v. Crowley (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1472.) “[T]he MFAA was enacted to require, at the option of the client, that the attorney arbitrate any fee dispute.” (Ibid.) “[T]he MFAA . . . requires that the attorney give the client written notice of its right to arbitration at or before the time the attorney brings suit or other proceeding to collect on unpaid fees or costs.” (Ibid.) “If the attorney fails to comply with this notice requirement and initiates an action or proceeding for fees, the client may elect to stay the action by requesting arbitration before answering.” (Ibid.) “It is presumed under the MFAA that the arbitration award will be nonbinding.” (Ibid.) “The arbitration award will be binding . . . only if the attorney and client so agree in writing after the dispute has arisen. Otherwise, either party may request a trial de novo within 30 days after the arbitration has concluded” (Ibid.) “Either the attorney or client may have a trial de novo of the dispute if the dissatisfied party, within 30 days after service of the arbitration award, files a rejection and request for trial in the pending action . . . or, if no action is pending, files a rejection and trial request by initiating an action” (Id. at p. 1473.) “Absent the filing of a timely rejection and request for trial, the arbitration award becomes final.” (Ibid.)

“The award shall be in writing and signed by the arbitrators concurring therein . . . [and] shall include a determination of all the questions submitted to the arbitrators, the decision of which is necessary in order to determine the controversy.” (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6203(a).) “The award shall not include any award to either party for costs or attorney’s fees incurred in preparation for or in the course of the fee arbitration proceeding, notwithstanding any contract between the parties providing for such an award or costs or attorney’s fees.” (Ibid.) “[A] court confirming, correcting, or vacating an award . . . may award to the prevailing party reasonable fees and costs incurred in obtaining confirmation, correction, or vacation of the award.” (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6203(c).) “If an action has been previously filed in any court, any petition to confirm, correct, or vacate the award shall be to the court in which the action is pending” and, where a party has not appeared, “shall [be served] in the same manner as provided in Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 1003) of Title 9 of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6203(b).)

ANALYSIS

Procedural Violations

Here, Petitioner does not appear to have provided Respondent with notice of the February 26, 2025 hearing date on the Petition. “[D]ue process requires a party to be fully advised of the issues to be addressed.” (Fenn v. Sherriff (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1466, 1481.) Respondent should have been provided with notice of the February 26, 2025 hearing date on the Petition.

Analysis of the Petition

The instant action was commenced on July 10, 2024, with the filing of the Petition. The arbitration award was served by mail on the parties on June 25, 2024 (Petition, Attachment 6(c)), and Respondent did not file a rejection of the arbitration award within 30 days of service of such award. Respondent has not filed a rejection or filed a request for trial in the instant action. Thus, the arbitration award is final under Giorgianni v. Crowley, supra, 197 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1473.

Here, the arbitration award is in writing, sets forth the names of the arbitrators, makes a determination of the questions submitted to the arbitrators, and is signed by the arbitrators. (Petition, Attachment 6(c) at p. 3.) The arbitration award also does not include any fees or costs incurred in connection with the arbitration. (Petition, Attachment 6(c) at pp. 3-4.) The arbitration award states that “Client [Sonja Becker-Gooch] shall pay Attorney [Patrick DeCarolis, Jr.] $300,000.00 plus interest in the amount of 10% per nnum (sic) from the 30th day after the date of service of this Award.” (Petition, Attachment 6(c) at p. 4.) Attorney Patrick DeCarolis, Jr. was ordered to “pay Client [Sonja Becker-Gooch] $2,500.00 plus interest in the amount of 10% per annum from the 30th day after the date of service of [the] Award.” (Petition, Attachment 6(c) at p. 4.) Respondent was served with the award on June 25, 2024. (Petition, Attachment 6(c) at Proof of Service.)

The Court, however, cannot grant the Petition due to the lack of notice to Respondent of the instant hearing date.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court CONTINUES the hearing on the Petition to Thursday, April 3, 2025, at 8:30 AM in this department so that Petitioner can provide proper notice of the hearing to Respondent.