ANI A. AVETISYAN VS SIVAN BAHBAJIAN

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STCP02045    Hearing Date: October 24, 2019    Dept: 94

VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1285)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Ani A. Avetisyan’s Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award is DENIED.

RELIEF REQUESTED: Vacate arbitration award because (1) the award was obtained by corruption, fraud, or other unfair means; (2) the arbitrator was corrupt; (3) the misconduct of a neutral arbitrator substantially prejudiced petitioners rights; (4) the arbitrator exceeded his or her authority, and the award cannot be fairly corrected; (5) the arbitrator unfairly refused to postpone the hearing or to hear evidence useful to settle the dispute.

RESPONSE: Filed June 4, 2019.

REPLY: Filed June 17, 2019.

ANALYSIS:

On May 24, 2019, Petitioner Ani A. Avetisyan (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award against Respondent Sivan Bahbajian (“Respondent”). Respondent filed a Petition to Confirm Arbitration award in the same case on June 4, 2019 and Petitioner replied on June 17, 2019.

Discussion

A petition to vacate an arbitration award must be served and filed no later than 100 days after the date of the service of a signed copy of the award on the petitioner. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1288.) The arbitration award was served on the parties on February 14, 2019. The Petition was timely filed on May 24, 2019, and served exactly 100 days later, on May 25, 2019. Respondent timely filed and served by mail a Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award as her response. Petitioner filed a reply on July 17, 2019.

Petitioner moves to vacate the arbitration award pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2, which states in pertinent part:

(a) Subject to Section 1286.4, the court shall vacate the award if the court determines any of the following:

(1) The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means.

(2) There was corruption in any of the arbitrators.

(3) The rights of the party were substantially prejudiced by misconduct of a neutral arbitrator.

(4) The arbitrators exceeded their powers and the award cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy submitted.

(6) An arbitrator making the award . . . (B) was subject to disqualification upon grounds specified in Section 1281.91 but failed upon receipt of timely demand to disqualify himself or herself as required by that provision. . . .

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.2, subd. (a).) Defendant argues that the (1) the award was obtained by corruption, fraud, or other unfair means; (2) the arbitrator was corrupt; (3) the misconduct of a neutral arbitrator substantially prejudiced petitioners rights; (4) the arbitrator exceeded his or her authority, and the award cannot be fairly corrected; and (5) the arbitrator unfairly refused to postpone the hearing or to hear evidence useful to settle the dispute.

As an initial matter, the Court notes that the Petition is supported by an excess 222-paragraph declaration by Petitioner. Petitioner first contends that the arbitrator exceeded her authority by putting more than $25,000.00 in fees in controversy sua sponte after the hearing. (Pet., Avetisyan Decl., ¶42.) The only evidence in support of this is a summary in the arbitrator’s Award summarizing the fees charged by Petitioner. (Id. at ¶48.) This does not indicate that the arbitrator ruled on the propriety of all those fees in making her Award. Nor did the Arbitrator issue an award beyond that sought by Respondent. Respondent sought a refund of $10,035.00 and removal of a lien in the amount of $8,545.00 for unauthorized charges, for a total amount in controversy of $18,580.00. (Pet., Exh. B at p. 9.)

Nor has Petitioner shown that the arbitrator improperly considered issues beyond those presented. “The award shall include a determination of all questions submitted to the arbitrators, the decision of which is necessary in order to determine the controversy.” (LACBA Rule 34, subd. (a).) The Award clearly states the issues raised by the parties and the questions that flow therefrom. (Pet., Exh. 2 at pp. 8-9.) It is only improper for an arbitrator to base an award upon information not obtained at the hearing if that information is not disclosed to all parties and the parties are deprived of an opportunity to meet it. (LACBA Rule 28, subd. (e).) Petitioner does not contend that the Award was based on information obtained outside the hearing. The Award sets forth in detail the facts pertinent to the dispute and the source of those facts, whether written or oral. (Pet., Exh. 2 at pp. 1-6, 13.)

Third, Petitioner does not offer evidence of what issues she presented and on which the arbitrator declined to rule, such as estoppel. (See Pet., Avetisyan Decl., ¶58.) Fourth, Petitioner herself cites the rule that failure to comply with the deadlines for issuing an award does not invalidate the Award. (Pet., Points & Authorities, p. 6:21-26 (citing LACBA Rule 18.) Any delay in the issuance of the Award is not a basis to grant the Petition. Fifth, no specific evidence is provided regarding how the arbitrator failed to provide sufficient time for Petitioner to present her evidence. (Pet., Avetisyan Decl., ¶120.) She does not indicate what evidence she sought to present, how it was relevant to the issues, and why the time provided was inadequate. (Ibid.) Sixth, Petitioner’s contention that the arbitrator misrepresented one statement of her testimony, even if credible, does not show that the arbitrator was interested, biased or unqualified. (Pet., Avetisyan Decl., ¶126.) Petitioner admits she does not know why the arbitrator made that purported misstatement. (Id. at ¶128.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Petitioner has not demonstrated a basis to vacate the award. The Petition is DENIED.