This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/14/2020 at 08:34:32 (UTC).

CAMERON WEISS VS DERRICK WILLIES

Case Summary

On 09/09/2019 CAMERON WEISS filed an Other - Arbitration lawsuit against DERRICK WILLIES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3941

  • Filing Date:

    09/09/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other - Arbitration

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Petitioner

WEISS CAMERON

Respondent

WILLIES DERRICK

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorney

DI GIOVANNI KRISTOPHER

 

Court Documents

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

1/6/2020: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

9/9/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

9/9/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award - Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

9/9/2019: Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award - Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

9/9/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

9/9/2019: Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/06/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: Cameron Weiss (Petitioner); As to: Derrick Willies (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2020
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award scheduled for 01/13/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Rescheduled by Court was rescheduled to 01/13/2020 10:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2019
  • DocketHearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award scheduled for 01/13/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2019
  • DocketPetition to Confirm Arbitration Award; Filed by: Cameron Weiss (Petitioner); As to: Derrick Willies (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Cameron Weiss (Petitioner); As to: Derrick Willies (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2019
  • DocketNotice of Hearing on Petition; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STCP03941    Hearing Date: January 13, 2020    Dept: 94

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Cameron Weiss’ Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is CONTINUED TO MARCH 18, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 94.

ANALYSIS:

On July 2, 2019, an arbitrator issued an Arbitration Award pursuant in favor of Cameron Weiss (“Petitioner”) and against Derrick Willies (“Respondent”). On September 9, 2019, Petitioner filed the instant Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (the “Petition”). To date, no response has been filed.

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

Service of the Petition and Notice of Hearing

Code of Civil Procedure, section 1290.4 requires the Petition and Notice of Hearing to be served on Respondent “in the manner provided in the arbitration agreement for the service of such petition and notice” or “[i]f the arbitration agreement does not provide the manner in which such service shall be made . . . [s]ervice within this State shall be made in the manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4, subds. (a), (b).)

The Petition and Notice of hearing were served on Respondent by mail on January 3, 2020. Although a copy of the parties arbitration agreement is attached to the Petition, it does not provide for the manner of service of the Petition and Notice of Hearing. Nor does Petitioner point to any other governing provision regarding service of these documents. Therefore, service must be made in the manner provided by law for the service of summons. Service by mail does not satisfy the requirements for service of a summons.

Petitioner, therefore, has not demonstrated compliance with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure, section 1290.4. As a result, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Respondents. (Abers v. Rohrs (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1199, 1206 (explaining that “[p]roper service of process of a petition or complaint is the means by which a court obtains personal jurisdiction over a party.”))

Service of the Arbitration Award (CCP §§ 1283.6, 1288)

The Petition does demonstrate service of the arbitration award, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1283.6. No copy of the arbitration award, nor proof of service of the award on the parties, is attached to the Petition. The Court, therefore, cannot find that the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure, section 1288 regarding service of the award have been satisfied.

Confirmation of the Arbitration Award

An arbitration award is not directly enforceable until it is confirmed by a court and judgment is entered. (CCP § 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. (CCP § 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:

  1. 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.

  2. Set forth the names of the arbitrators.

  3. 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 does not comply with the above requirements. It sets forth the nature of the agreement to arbitrate. (Petition, ¶4 and Attachment 4(B).) It also sets forth the name of the Arbitrator (Roger P. Kaplan). However, the Petition does not attach a copy of the Award to the Petition. The Court, therefore, cannot make any findings as to the terms of the Award.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the hearing on the Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is CONTINUED TO MARCH 18, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 94. AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE NEW HEARING DATE, PETITIONER IS TO FILE AND SERVE SUPPLEMENTAL PAPERS ADDRESSING THE DEFECTS DISCUSSED ABOVE. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS MAY RESULT IN THE PETITION BEING PLACED OFF CALENDAR OR DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.