This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/02/2020 at 01:40:23 (UTC).

DARIUSH G ADLI, ET AL. VS KEVIN D. FRAZER, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 06/11/2019 DARIUSH G ADLI filed an Other - Arbitration lawsuit against KEVIN D FRAZER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2403

  • Filing Date:

    06/11/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other - Arbitration

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Petitioners

ADLI LAW GROUP P.C.

ADLI DARIUSH G

Respondents

FRAZER KEVIN D.

FRAZER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorney

ADLI DARIUSH G.

 

Court Documents

Notice (name extension) - Notice OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

11/16/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)

11/30/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

11/12/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 11/12/2020

11/12/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 11/12/2020

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

9/29/2020: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

10/5/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance

10/5/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance

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

4/17/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Notice (name extension) - Notice OF HEARING AND PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL ARBITRATION AWARD DOCUMENTS

7/1/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice OF HEARING AND PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL ARBITRATION AWARD DOCUMENTS

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)

7/22/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)

1/9/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)

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

10/10/2019: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award - Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

6/11/2019: Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award - Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

6/11/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

6/11/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

6/11/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

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

6/11/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

6/11/2019: Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

10 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/07/2021
  • Hearing01/07/2021 at 10:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Petition (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2020
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award scheduled for 11/30/2020 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 01/07/2021 10:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2020
  • DocketNotice OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING; Filed by: Dariush G Adli (Petitioner); Adli Law Group P.C. (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Dariush G. Adli (Attorney): First Name changed from Dariush to Dariush

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 11/12/2020; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Court Order)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2020
  • DocketThere being no judge available this date, Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award scheduled for 11/17/2020 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion was rescheduled to 11/30/2020 10:00 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2020
  • DocketNotice of Continuance; Filed by: Dariush G Adli (Petitioner); Adli Law Group P.C. (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2020
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: Dariush G Adli (Petitioner); Adli Law Group P.C. (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
13 More Docket Entries
  • 10/10/2019
  • DocketThere being no judge available this date, Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award scheduled for 10/15/2019 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion was rescheduled to 01/09/2020 10:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2019
  • DocketHearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award scheduled for 10/15/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2019
  • DocketNotice of Hearing on Petition; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2019
  • DocketSummons on Petition; Issued and Filed by: Dariush G Adli (Petitioner); Adli Law Group P.C. (Petitioner); As to: Kevin D. Frazer (Respondent); Frazer Construction Company (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Dariush G Adli (Petitioner); Adli Law Group P.C. (Petitioner); As to: Kevin D. Frazer (Respondent); Frazer Construction Company (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Dariush G Adli (Petitioner); Adli Law Group P.C. (Petitioner); As to: Kevin D. Frazer (Respondent); Frazer Construction Company (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2019
  • DocketPetition to Confirm Arbitration Award; Filed by: Dariush G Adli (Petitioner); Adli Law Group P.C. (Petitioner); As to: Kevin D. Frazer (Respondent); Frazer Construction Company (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STCP02403    Hearing Date: November 30, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Mon., November 30, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Adli v. Frazer, et al. PET. FILED: 06-11-19

CASE NUMBER: 19STCP02403

NOTICE: NO

PROCEEDINGS: PETITION TO CONFIRM ATTORNEY-CLIENT FEE ARBITRATION AWARD

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Dariush G. Adli on behalf of Adli Law Group, P.C.

RESP. PARTY: None

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1285)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Dariush G. Adli on behalf of Adli Law Group, P.C.’s Petition to Confirm Attorney-Client Fee Arbitration Award is CONTINUED one last time to JANUARY 7, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Petitioner must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so will result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE:

[ ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) NO

[ ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) NO

[ ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) NO

OPPOSITION: None filed as of November 19, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of November 19, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On June 11, 2019, Petitioner Dariush G. Adli on behalf of Adli Law Group, P.C. (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition to Confirm Attorney-Client Fee Arbitration Award (the “Petition”) against Respondents Kevin D. Frazer and Frazer Construction Company (collectively, “Respondents”).

On January 9, 2020, the Court continued the hearing due to Petitioner’s failure to attach a proof of service demonstrating the Petition and Notice of Hearing were served on Respondents. (1/9/20 Minute Order.) Petitioner also did not set forth the nature, or attach a copy of, the parties’ agreement to arbitrate and did not attach a copy of the arbitration award. (Id.) On July 1, 2020, Petitioner filed a Notice of Hearing and supplemental documents with a proof of service.

On July 22, 2020, the Court continued the hearing a second time because the Petition still did not set forth the nature, or attach a copy of, the parties’ agreement to arbitrate and because it did not include a proof of service demonstrating the Petition was served in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4. (7/22/20 Minute Order.) On September 29, 2020, Petitioner filed additional supplemental papers.

To date, no opposition has been filed.

II. Legal Standard

“Regardless of the particular relief granted, any arbitrator’s award is enforceable only when confirmed as a judgment of the superior court.” (O’Hare v. Municipal Resource Consultants (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 267, 278.) “Once a petition to confirm an award is filed, the superior court must select one of only four courses of action: it may confirm the award, correct and confirm it, vacate it, or dismiss the petition.” (EHM Productions, Inc. v. Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1063.) It is well settled that the scope of judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely narrow.” (California Faculty Assn. v. Superior Court (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 935, 943.) “Neither the trial court, nor the appellate court, may ‘review the merits of the dispute, the sufficiency of the evidence, or the arbitrator’s reasoning, nor may we correct or review an award because of an arbitrator’s legal or factual error, even if it appears on the award’s face.” (EHM Productions, supra, at p. 1063-64.)

III. Discussion

A. Filing Requirements (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4)

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.”

Petitioner’s supplemental papers include a copy of the Arbitration Award, which includes the name of the neutral arbitrator, Gene A. Weisberg, with the Los Angeles County Bar Association, Attorney-Client Mediation and Arbitration Services. (7/1/10 Supp. Arb. Award Documents, Exh. A.) The Award requires Respondents to pay Petitioner $10,853.55, which includes unpaid attorney’s fees of $10,106.77 and 90% of the $829.76 filing fee, or $746.78. (Id.) Petitioner’s supplemental papers also include a copy of the Notice of Clients Right to Fee Arbitration sent to Respondents as well as a copy of Respondents’ online petition for arbitration with the Los Angeles County Bar Association. (9/29/20 Supp. Brief, ¶¶ 2, 4, Exhs. B, D.)

Thus, Petitioner has satisfied Section 1285.4.

B. Service of the Petition, and Notice of Hearing (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1283.6, 1290.4.)

Code of Civil Procedure, section 1290.4 states, in pertinent part:

“(a) A copy of the petition and a written notice of the time and place of the hearing thereof and any other papers upon which the petition is based shall be served in the manner provided in the arbitration agreement for the service of such petition and notice.

(b) If the arbitration agreement does not provide the manner in which such service shall be made and the person upon whom service is to be made has not previously appeared in the proceeding and has not previously been served in accordance with this subdivision: ¶ (1) Service within this State shall be made in the manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action.

Here, the parties’ agreement does not provide for a manner of service. Thus, service of this Petition must be made in the same manner as service of process. Service of a summons may be accomplished by personal service, by substitute service, by mail with acknowledgment of receipt, or by publication. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.10, et seq.)

Petitioner filed two proofs of service. The first states that the Petition was served by mail and acknowledgment of receipt of service. (9/29/20 Proof of Service.) Although service of summons in this manner is permitted by Code of Civil Procedure section 415.30, Petitioner did not file a copy of Respondents’ executed Notice and Acknowledgement of Receipt Form. (Code Civ. Proc., 415, 30, subd. (c).) Thus, Petitioner did not demonstrate proper service via mail and acknowledgment.

Petitioner filed a second proof of service on October 5, 2020, stating that the Petition and Notice of Hearing were served via certified mail on September 22, 2020. However, service via certified mail is not a proper method by which to serve a summons and complaint.

Thus, Petitioner still has not demonstrated the Petition was served in accordance with Section 1290.4.

C. Service of the Arbitration Award & Timeliness of Petition (CCP §§ 1283.6, 1288, 1288.4)

Code of Civil Procedure section 1283.6 provides that: “The neutral arbitrator shall serve a signed copy of the award on each party to the arbitration personally or by registered or certified mail or as provided in the agreement.” (Emphasis added.) However, a Court may confirm an arbitration award despite an irregularity in service by the arbitrator when the non-moving party has not suffered any prejudice. (Murray v. Civil Service Emp. Ins. Co. (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 796, 799; see also United Brotherhood of Carpenters etc., Local 642 v. Demello (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 838, 840 [affirming confirmation of arbitration award despite an irregularity in statutory signature requirements because the appellant did not demonstrate it was prejudiced by said statutory violation].)

Here, the Los Angeles County Bar Association served both parties on May 10, 2019 via first-class mail, not certified or registered mail as required by Section 1283.6. (7/1/20 Supp. Brief, Exh. A.) However, “the sole function of the service of an award upon the parties to an arbitration is to give them notice of the existence and contents of the award.” (Murray v. Civil Service Emp. Ins. Co., supra, at p. 799.) The Court finds that function was satisfied here, and Respondents have not filed an opposition demonstrating otherwise.

In addition, a party may seek a court judgment confirming an arbitration award by filing and serving a petition no more than four years, but not less than 10 days, after the award is served. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1288, 1288.4.) (Italics added.) Here, the parties were initially served with the Award on May 10, 2019, and this Petition was filed more than 10 days later, on June 11, 2019.

Thus, the Court finds that Petitioner has satisfied the requirements of Sections 1283.6, 1288, and 1288.4.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Dariush G. Adli on behalf of Adli Law Group, P.C.’s Petition to Confirm Attorney-Client Fee Arbitration Award is CONTINUED one last time to JANUARY 7, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Petitioner must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so will result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STCP02403    Hearing Date: July 22, 2020    Dept: 25

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1285)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Dariush G. Adli on behalf of Adli Law Group, P.C.’s Petition to Confirm Attorney-Client Fee Arbitration Award is CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 13, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Petitioner must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so will result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE:

[ ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) NO

[ ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) NO

[ ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) NO

OPPOSITION: None filed as of July 20, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of July 20, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On June 11, 2019, Petitioner Dariush G. Adli on behalf of Adli Law Group, P.C. (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition to Confirm Attorney-Client Fee Arbitration Award (the “Petition”) against Respondent Kevin D. Frazer/Frazer Construction Company (“Respondent”).

On January 9, 2020, the Court continued the hearing due to Petitioner’s failure to attach a proof of service demonstrating the Petition and Notice of Hearing were served on Respondent. (1/9/20 Minute Order.) Petitioner also did not set forth the nature of, or attach a copy of, the parties’ agreement to arbitrate, and did not attach a copy of the arbitration award or proof of service demonstrating the award was served by the neutral arbitrator. (Id.) Thus, the Court ordered Petitioner to file and serve supplemental papers addressing the noted deficiencies and warned that failure to do so could result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied. (Id.)

On July 1, 2020, Petitioner filed a Notice of Hearing and Proof of Service of Supplemental Arbitration Award Documents.

To date, no opposition has been filed.

II. Legal Standard

“Regardless of the particular relief granted, any arbitrator’s award is enforceable only when confirmed as a judgment of the superior court.” (O’Hare v. Municipal Resource Consultants (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 267, 278.) “Once a petition to confirm an award is filed, the superior court must select one of only four courses of action: it may confirm the award, correct and confirm it, vacate it, or dismiss the petition.” (EHM Productions, Inc. v. Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1063.) It is well settled that the scope of judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely narrow.” (California Faculty Assn. v. Superior Court (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 935, 943.) “Neither the trial court, nor the appellate court, may ‘review the merits of the dispute, the sufficiency of the evidence, or the arbitrator’s reasoning, nor may we correct or review an award because of an arbitrator’s legal or factual error, even if it appears on the award’s face.” (EHM Productions, supra, at p. 1063-64.)

III. Discussion

A. Filing Requirements (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4)

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.”

Petitioner’s supplemental papers include a copy of the Arbitration Award, which includes the name of the neutral arbitrator, Gene A. Weisberg. (7/1/10 Supp. Arb. Award Documents, Exh. A.) The Award requires Respondent to pay Petitioner $10,853.55, which includes unpaid attorney’s fees of $10,106.77 and 90% of the $829.76 filing fee, or $746.78. (Id.) However, Petitioner did not set forth or attach a copy of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate their dispute as requested on January 9, 2020. (1/9/20 Minute Order.)

Thus, Petitioner has not satisfied Section 1285.4.

B. Service of the Arbitration Award, Petition, and Notice of Hearing (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1283.6, 1290.4.)

Code of Civil Procedure, section 1283.6 provides that “[t]he neutral arbitrator shall serve a signed copy of the award on each party to the arbitration personally or by registered or certified mail or as provided in the agreement.” (Italics added.)

Code of Civil Procedure, section 1290.4 states, in pertinent part:

“(a) A copy of the petition and a written notice of the time and place of the hearing thereof and any other papers upon which the petition is based shall be served in the manner provided in the arbitration agreement for the service of such petition and notice.

(b) If the arbitration agreement does not provide the manner in which such service shall be made and the person upon whom service is to be made has not previously appeared in the proceeding and has not previously been served in accordance with this subdivision: ¶ (1) Service within this State shall be made in the manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action.

Although Petitioner filed a proof of service for the notice of continuance and the supplemental papers filed on July 1, 2020, he has still not filed a proof of service demonstrating the Petition was properly served on Respondent. In addition, because Petitioner did not attach a copy of the parties’ agreement, the Court cannot determine the manner of service required. Thus, Petitioner has not fully satisfied the service requirements of Section 1290.4.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Dariush G. Adli on behalf of Adli Law Group, P.C.’s Petition to Confirm Attorney-Client Fee Arbitration Award is CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 13, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Petitioner must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so will result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STCP02403    Hearing Date: January 09, 2020    Dept: 94

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1285) 

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Dariush G. Adli on behalf of Adli Law Group, PC’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is CONTINUED TO MARCH 12, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 94.

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS: Petition to confirm arbitration award.

RELIEF REQUESTED: Enter judgment against Respondents pursuant to the terms of the stipulated arbitration award.

ANALYSIS:

On June 11, 2019, Dariush G. Adli on behalf of Adli Law Group, PC (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition to Confirm Attorney-Client Fee Arbitration Award against Kevin D. Frazer / Frazer Construction Company (“Respondent”). The Court initially set the Petition for hearing on October 15, 2019, but then continued the matter prior to the hearing, to January 9, 2020. To date, no response has been filed.

Discussion

A petition to confirm an attorney-client fee arbitration award under Cal. Business & Professions Code section 6200, et seq. shall be “in the same manner as provided in Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 1285) of Title 9 of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6203.) 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.”

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).)

Petitioner has not filed proof of service demonstrating service of the Petition or Notice of Hearing on Respondent. Nor has Petitioner set forth the substance of, or attached a copy of, the agreement to arbitrate. The Court, therefore, cannot determine the manner of service required nor find that service complies with the statutory requirements of Code of Civil Procedure, section 1290.4.

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

The Petition states that the Award was mailed on May 10, 2019 and that a copy of the Award is attached as Attachment 6(c). (Pet., ¶¶6-7.) However, no copy of the Award or proof of service of the Award is attached to the Petition.

Therefore, the Court cannot find that a signed copy of the Award was served on the parties by the arbitrator “personally or by registered or certified mail or as provided in the agreement” as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1283.6. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1283.6.) Nor can the Court find that the Petition was timely served no more than four years after the award was served, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1288.

The requirements of Code of Civil Procedure sections 1283.6 and 1288 have not been shown to be 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:

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 does not comply with the above requirements. It does not set forth the nature of the agreement to arbitrate or attach a copy. (Petition, ¶4.) It does sets forth the name of the Arbitrator (Gene A. Weisberg), but does not attach a copy of the Award to the Petition. (Petition, ¶¶7-8.) Therefore, the Court cannot make any findings regarding the Award.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is CONTINUED TO MARCH 12, 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 NOTED HEREIN. PETITIONER MUST ALSO CONCURRENTLY FILE PROOF OF SERVICE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL PAPERS AND NOTICE OF HEARING DATE. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS MAY RESULT IN THE PETITION BEING PLACED OFF CALENDAR OR DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.