CAMERON WEISS VS DERRICK WILLIES

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.