This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/12/2020 at 01:30:55 (UTC).

BROWNHOUSE CONSTRUCTION VS JOSEPH HAKIMPOUR

Case Summary

On 10/03/2019 BROWNHOUSE CONSTRUCTION filed an Other - Arbitration lawsuit against JOSEPH HAKIMPOUR. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Disposed - Other Disposed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******4303

  • Filing Date:

    10/03/2019

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Other Disposed

  • Case Type:

    Other - Arbitration

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Petitioner

BROWNHOUSE CONSTRUCTION

Respondent

HAKIMPOUR JOSEPH

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorney

PLUMTREE A. MARIA

Respondent Attorney

DIB MONICA D.

 

Court Documents

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

9/15/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Judgment - Judgment

9/21/2020: Judgment - Judgment

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

6/16/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

6/16/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Notice (name extension) - Notice OF COURT'S ORDER REGARDING CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON JOSEPH HAKIMPOUR'S PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

6/22/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice OF COURT'S ORDER REGARDING CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON JOSEPH HAKIMPOUR'S PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

Notice (name extension) - Notice OF COURT'S ORDER REGARDING HEARING ON JOSEPH HAKJMPOUR'S PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

4/29/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice OF COURT'S ORDER REGARDING HEARING ON JOSEPH HAKJMPOUR'S PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

Brief (name extension) - Brief RESPONDENT'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION A WARD; SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF JOSEPH HAKIMPOUR (AND EXHIBIT A); DECLARATION OF PIER

4/2/2020: Brief (name extension) - Brief RESPONDENT'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION A WARD; SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF JOSEPH HAKIMPOUR (AND EXHIBIT A); DECLARATION OF PIER

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

4/16/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

2/14/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award - Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

1/7/2020: Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award - Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application FOR THE FOLLOWING ORDERS: AN ...)

1/17/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application FOR THE FOLLOWING ORDERS: AN ...)

Notice (name extension) - Notice OF COURT'S ORDER ON RESPONDENT JOSEPH HAKIMPOUR'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR THE FOLLOWING ORDERS

1/17/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice OF COURT'S ORDER ON RESPONDENT JOSEPH HAKIMPOUR'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR THE FOLLOWING ORDERS

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Ex Parte Application

1/17/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Ex Parte Application

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

1/17/2020: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Response (name extension) - Response BROWNHOUSE CONSTRUCTIONS RESPONSE TO RESPONDENTS OBJECTION TO THE DECLARATION OF BRITT FRYE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD; DECL

1/31/2020: Response (name extension) - Response BROWNHOUSE CONSTRUCTIONS RESPONSE TO RESPONDENTS OBJECTION TO THE DECLARATION OF BRITT FRYE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD; DECL

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

10/15/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

10/3/2019: Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

Petition (name extension) - Petition [ERRATA] NOTICE OF PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD; PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

10/4/2019: Petition (name extension) - Petition [ERRATA] NOTICE OF PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD; PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

18 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/21/2020
  • DocketJudgment; Filed by: Joseph Hakimpour (Respondent); As to: Brownhouse Construction (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Judgment: Status changed from Filed to Signed and Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2020
  • DocketNon-Appearance Case Review re lodging of proposed judgment scheduled for 09/25/2020 at 02:00 PM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 09/17/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Joseph Hakimpour (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2020
  • DocketNon-Appearance Case Review re lodging of proposed judgment scheduled for 09/25/2020 at 02:00 PM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other Confirmation of Arbitration Award; ...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion - Other Confirmation of Arbitration Award scheduled for 09/10/2020 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 09/10/2020; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2020
  • DocketHearing on Petition Petition to Vacate or Alter Arbitration Award (CCP 1285 - 1287.6) scheduled for 09/10/2020 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 09/10/2020; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2020
  • DocketNotice OF COURT'S ORDER REGARDING CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON JOSEPH HAKIMPOUR'S PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD; Filed by: Brownhouse Construction (Petitioner); As to: Joseph Hakimpour (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
30 More Docket Entries
  • 01/07/2020
  • DocketNotice of Association of Counsel; Filed by: Joseph Hakimpour (Respondent); As to: Brownhouse Construction (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2020
  • DocketPetition to Confirm Arbitration Award; Filed by: Joseph Hakimpour (Respondent); As to: Brownhouse Construction (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Brownhouse Construction (Petitioner); As to: Joseph Hakimpour (Respondent); Service Date: 02/10/2019; Service Cost: 125.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/04/2019
  • DocketPetition [ERRATA] NOTICE OF PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD; PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; Filed by: Brownhouse Construction (Petitioner); As to: Joseph Hakimpour (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2019
  • DocketHearing on Petition Petition to Vacate or Alter Arbitration Award (CCP 1285 - 1287.6) scheduled for 02/06/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2019
  • DocketNotice of Hearing on Petition; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2019
  • DocketPetition to Vacate or Alter Arbitration Award (CCP 1285 - 1287.6); Filed by: Brownhouse Construction (Petitioner); As to: Joseph Hakimpour (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STCP04303    Hearing Date: September 10, 2020    Dept: 26

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1285)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Joseph Hakimour’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is GRANTED. JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED PURSUANT TO THE AWARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,000.00 PRINCIPAL. PROPOSED JUDGMENT TO BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On August 20, 2019, an arbitrator issued an Arbitration Award in favor of Joseph Hakimpour (“Respondent”) and against Brownhouse Construction (“Petitioner”). On October 3, 2019, Petitioner timely filed this action by a Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award. On January 7, 2020, Respondent filed the instant Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (the “Petition”). To date, no

response has been filed.

The hearing on the Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award initially came for hearing on February 13, 2020 and the continued hearing is also set for September 10, 2020.

Legal Standard

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 1285, “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.”

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 1285.4, “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; (b) Set forth the names of the arbitrator; and (c) Set forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any.”

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 1286, “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.”

Discussion

An arbitration award is not directly enforceable until it is confirmed by a court and judgment is entered. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1287.6; Jones v. Kvistad (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 836, 840.) The court must confirm the award as made, unless it corrects or vacates the award, or dismisses the proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286; Valsan Partners Limited Partnership v. Calcor Space Facility, Inc. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 809, 818.) 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.

b) Set forth the names of the arbitrators.

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

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4.) The Petition complies with the above requirements. It sets forth the nature of the agreement to arbitrate. (Pet., Exh. 4(b).) It also sets forth the name of the Arbitrator, David Schlueter (Pet., ¶6.) Finally, the Petition attaches a copy of the Award. (Pet., Exh. 8(c).) Based on Respondent’s compliance with the requirements to confirm the arbitration and the lack of any opposition to the request, the substantive portion of the Petition has been satisfied.

To the extent Respondent requests attorney’s fees and costs according to proof (Pet., ¶¶10(e)-

(f)), those are permitted on a petition to confirm arbitration award. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1293.2; MBNA America Bank, N.A. v. Gorman (2006) 147 Cal.App.4th.Supp. 1, 7.) Respondent may file a memorandum of costs pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1700 and a noticed motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1702.

Conclusion

Joseph Hakimour’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is GRANTED. JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED PURSUANT TO THE AWARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,000.00 PRINCIPAL. PROPOSED JUDGMENT TO BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 19STCP04303    Hearing Date: February 13, 2020    Dept: 26

Brownhouse Construction v. Hakimpour, et al.

VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1285)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Brownhouse Construction’s Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award is CONTINUED to JULY 20, 2020 at 10:30 am in Department 26 in the Spring Street Courthouse. At least 16 court days prior to the hearing, Respondent is to file and serve a supplemental brief solely addressing Petitioner’s contention that he was not given an opportunity to review and respond to the documents supporting the damages amount. The supplemental brief is not to exceed five (5) pages. No other briefing is permitted.

ANALYSIS:

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 subject arbitration award (“the Award”) was served on the parties on August 20, 2019. (Pet., ¶9 and Exh. 5.) On October 3, 2019, Petitioner Brownhouse Construction (“Petitioner”) timely filed the instant Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award against Respondent Joseph Hakimpour (“Respondent”). Petitioner filed a supplemental declaration in support of the Petition on January 14, 2020. With leave of Court, Respondent filed an opposition on January 17, 2020 and Petitioner replied on January 31, 2020.

Respondent has also filed a Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award that is set for hearing on July 20, 2020.

Evidentiary Objections

Respondent’s evidentiary objections are overruled. On January 14, 2020, Petitioner filed a supplemental declaration providing a foundation for and authenticating the evidence submitted in support of the Petition.

Discussion

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).) Petitioner argues that the (1) the arbitrator exceeded his power; and (2) the arbitrator’s misconduct substantially prejudiced Petitioner’s rights.

Arbitrator Exceeded His Powers

Petitioner first argues that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by issuing an Award that contradicts the terms of the parties’ signed agreement and that such conduct mandates the vacation of the Award. “A trial court may vacate an award interpreting a contract if and only if it ‘rests on a ‘completely irrational’ construction of the contract [citations] or ... amounts to an ‘arbitrary remaking’ of the contract[.]’” (California Dept. of Human Resources v. Service Employees Internat. Union, Local 1000 (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1420, 1430 (citing Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp. (1994) 9 Cal.4th 362, 376-377).)

Petitioner argues that the arbitrator ignored a key provision of the parties’ home improvement contract, at section 21.4, which states:

Upon completion of the work, Owner agrees to exercise due diligence in inspecting the work for defective workmanship and materials. Owner agrees to notify Contractor within forty-eight (48) hours of completion of work described hereunder of all defective work, if any. Owner agrees that upon discovery of any alleged defective work, Owner shall immediately call Contractor who shall have the first opportunity to repair the alleged defective work. The failure to allow Contractor the first opportunity to repair the alleged defective work shall void all warranties, express and implied hereunder and relieves Contractor of any liability to Owner. Owner agrees and recognizes that it shall not withhold any payments for allegedly defective work or punch list items. Contractor is not responsible for reimbursement for work performed by any other company or individual.

(Pet., Supp. Frye Decl., Exh. 1 at § 21.4 (emphasis added.) Petitioner argues that Respondent breached this provision by hiring a different contractor to repair Petitioner’s work without giving it an opportunity to cure the defective work. In support of this, Petitioner points to an email from Respondent stating “[w]e have just completed the last task that you had been paid for and we finished correcting the last mistake that you and your idiot employees had made before I fired you.” (Id. at Exh. 2.) He also contends that Respondent testified he did not Petitioner a chance to correct the work, but cites to no evidence regarding such testimony.

The Petition notably fails to attach the evidence Respondent provided the arbitrator regarding whether he gave Petitioner a chance to correct the defective work before firing Petitioner. (Opp., Hakimpour Decl., ¶¶20-21 and Exh. 3.) Given that conflicting evidence was submitted to the arbitrator regarding whether the Respondent breached section 2.41 of the home improvement contract, it cannot be said that the arbitrator’s award rests on a completely irrational interpretation of the contract. This is simply a matter of Petitioner disagreeing with the arbitrator’s interpretation of the evidence regarding Respondent’s breach of section 21.4. There is nothing in the Award as to the arbitrator’s analysis of the evidence regarding Respondent’s purported violation of section 21.4. (Pet., Supp. Frye Decl., Exh. 5.)

The Court, therefore, cannot find that the arbitrator looked at the evidence, concluded Respondent failed to provide Petitioner with a chance to cure the defective work (breached the contract), and then ignored the remedy provided by section 21.4 regarding such a breach.

Additionally, the opposition points to section 17.2.1 of the contact, which provides for termination of the contract upon either party’s default. (Id. at Exh. 1, § 17.2.1.) The parties’ evidence of breach of section 21.4 also goes to whether section 17.2.1 applies to Respondent’s conduct. Petitioner’s evidence does not show that an award to Respondent requires a complete disregard of section 21.4 given the parties’ options for terminating the agreement. Therefore, Petitioner has not established that the arbitrator’s decision was beyond the scope of his powers based on a proper record. (Lopes v. Millsap (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1679, 1685 [“Every reasonable intendment is indulged to give effect to arbitration proceedings; the burden is on the party attacking the award to affirmatively establish the existence of error by a proper record.”].)

Finally, to the extent Petitioner relies on these arguments to show the Award violates public policy by violating his right to contract, the Court also finds this is not a basis to vacate the Award.

Petitioner’s Rights Were Substantially Prejudiced By Misconduct Of The Arbitrator. (CCP § 1286.2(a)(3)

Petitioner’s second basis to vacate the Award is that the arbitrator relied on inadmissible or non-existent evidence of Respondent’s damages to award him $21,293. Petitioner contends this violates Code of Civil Procedure section 1282.2, subdivision (g), which states “If a neutral arbitrator intends to base an award upon information not obtained at the hearing, he shall disclose the information to all parties to the arbitration and give the parties an opportunity to meet it.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1282.2, subd. (g).)

The Petition argues that the only evidence Respondent presented to the arbitrator regarding his damages were documents that did not comply with Business and Professions Code 7085.5, subdivision (1). As a result, the arbitrator held that the documents were inadmissible. The Petition offers no evidence to support these claims. (Pet., p. 12:24-28.) Petitioner’s declaration states only that neither he nor his attorney received a copy of the documents. (Pet., Supp. Frye Decl., ¶8.) Considering documents in support of the request for damages without providing Respondent an opportunity to review and respond to that evidence could amount to misconduct.

Regardless of the arbitrator’s broad authority to conduct the arbitration as set forth in Cal. Business & Professions Code section 7085.5, subdivisions (i) to (k), the rules regarding documentary evidence are clear: “[t]he arbitrator may receive and consider documentary evidence. Documents to be considered by the arbitrator may be submitted prior to the hearing. However, a copy shall be simultaneously transmitted to all other parties and to the board or appointed arbitration association for transmittal to the arbitrator or board appointed arbitrator.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7085.5, subd. (l).) The California Supreme Court recently addressed this issue:

The Arbitration Act codifies “the fundamental principle that ‘[a]rbitration should give both parties an opportunity to be heard.’ [Citation.] ... [T]he opportunity to be heard must be extended to all parties equitably.” (Royal Alliance Associates, Inc. v. Liebhaber (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1092, 1108, 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 805.) To conduct an arbitration without abiding by that principle evinces bias, constituting misconduct.

(Heimlich v. Shivji (2019) 7 Cal.5th 350, 368-369.) Petitioner’s evidence of this misconduct, however, is provided only in its supplemental declaration filed on January 14, 2020. Respondent has not had a chance to respond to the supplemental declaration, which was filed on the same date Respondent brought an ex parte application to file a late opposition to the Petition. It is clear that Petitioner’s supplemental declaration responds to the evidentiary objections to the Petition. The evidentiary objections were attached to Respondent’s ex parte application. Upon granting Respondent’s ex parte application, the Court ordered Respondent to immediately electronically file the opposition. Even if Respondent were aware of the supplemental declaration filed three days earlier, he had no chance to respond.

Accordingly, the hearing must be continued to give Respondent an opportunity to respond to the statement in Petitioner’s declaration that neither he nor his attorney received a copy of the documents regarding Respondent’s damages.

Conclusion

Petitioner Brownhouse Construction’s Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award is CONTINUED TO JULY 20, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, RESPONDENT IS TO FILE AND SERVE A SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF SOLELY ADDRESSING PETITIONER’S CONTENTION THAT HE WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW AND RESPOND TO THE DOCUMENTS SUPPORTING THE DAMAGES AMONT. THE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IS NOT TO EXCEED FIVE (5) PAGES. NO OTHER BRIEFING IS PERMITTED.

Moving party to give notice.