This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/15/2021 at 00:13:40 (UTC).

DOMINIQUE OLOWOLATE, ET AL. VS JAVIER ENRIQUEZ

Case Summary

On 06/03/2020 DOMINIQUE OLOWOLATE filed an Other - Arbitration lawsuit against JAVIER ENRIQUEZ. 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 Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1834

  • Filing Date:

    06/03/2020

  • 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

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Petitioners

OLOWOLATE DOMINIQUE

HARVEY MATTHEW

Respondent

ENRIQUEZ JAVIER

 

Court Documents

Notice of Rejection - Pleadings - Notice of Rejection - Pleadings

12/7/2020: Notice of Rejection - Pleadings - Notice of Rejection - Pleadings

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

12/17/2020: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition contractual arbitration award)

1/13/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition contractual arbitration award)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition contractual arbitration award)

10/7/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition contractual arbitration award)

Petition (name extension) - Petition contractual arbitration award

6/3/2020: Petition (name extension) - Petition contractual arbitration award

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

6/3/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

6/3/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

6/3/2020: Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

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

6/3/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

6/5/2020: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

6/5/2020: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/10/2021
  • Hearing05/10/2021 at 10:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Petition (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2021
  • DocketHearing on Petition contractual arbitration award scheduled for 05/10/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Petition contractual arbitration award)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2021
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Petition contractual arbitration award scheduled for 01/13/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 05/10/2021 10:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/17/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: Dominique Olowolate (Petitioner); Matthew Harvey (Petitioner); As to: Javier Enriquez (Respondent); After Substituted Service of Summons & Complaint ?: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2020
  • DocketNotice of Rejection - Pleadings; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2020
  • DocketHearing on Petition contractual arbitration award scheduled for 01/13/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Petition contractual arbitration award)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2020
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Petition contractual arbitration award scheduled for 10/07/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 01/13/2021 09:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Request to Waive Court Fees: Filed By: Matthew Harvey (Petitioner); Result: Granted; Result Date: 06/05/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
5 More Docket Entries
  • 06/05/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Request to Waive Court Fees: Status Date changed from 06/04/2020 to 06/03/2020; Result Date changed from 06/05/2020 to 06/05/2020; As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2020
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: Matthew Harvey (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2020
  • DocketHearing on Petition contractual arbitration award scheduled for 10/07/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Dominique Olowolate (Petitioner); Matthew Harvey (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2020
  • DocketNotice of Hearing on Petition; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 26 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2020
  • DocketPetition contractual arbitration award; Filed by: Dominique Olowolate (Petitioner); Matthew Harvey (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2020
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: Dominique Olowolate (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STCP01834    Hearing Date: January 13, 2021    Dept: 26

Olowolate v. Enriquez, et al.

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1285)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioners Dominique Olowolate and Matthew Harvey’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Petitioners Dominique Olowolate and Matthew Harvey (“Petitioners”) filed the instant Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award against Javier Enriquez (“Respondent”) on June 3, 2020. At the initial hearing on October 7, 2020, the Court found Petitioners had failed to demonstrate proper service of the Petition, Notice of Hearing, or Arbitration Award. (Minute Order, 10/7/20.) The Court continued the hearing to allow Petitioners to demonstrate service of the papers as required by law. Petitioners filed a proof of service by mail on December 17, 2020.

To date, no opposition 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 Respondents “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 arbitration agreement does not address the manner in which a petition to confirm arbitration award must be served. (Pet., Attachment 4(c).) Therefore, service must be made in the manner provided by law for service of summons. The proof of service indicates that the Petition, Notice of Hearing and Arbitration Award were served by certified mail on December 4, 2020. (Proof of Service, ¶4.) However, there is no indication of an acknowledgement of receipt, which is required for service by certified mail. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 415.30.) Therefore, Petitioners still have not shown service of the Petition and Notice of Hearing pursuant to the statutory requirements.

Service of the Arbitration Award

Code of Civil Procedure section 1283.6 requires the arbitrator serve the signed arbitration award “personally or by registered or certified mail or as provided in the agreement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1283.6.) No proof of service is attached to the Arbitration Award. (Pet., Attachment 8(c).) Service of the award in conjunction with the Petition can satisfy the statutory requirements if sufficient to convey notice of the award. (See Murry v. Civil Service Employees Ins. Co. (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 796, 799-800.) Here, service of the Arbitration Award by certified mail was sufficient to give Respondent notice of its contents. The Court finds the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1283.6 satisfied.

Additionally, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1288, a petition to confirm arbitration must be filed and served no more than four years after the award was served. Until service of the Petition is demonstrated, the Court cannot find that the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1288 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:

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, which is pursuant to a Homeowner/Contractor Agreement. (Pet., Attachment 4(c).) It also sets forth the name of the Arbitrator (Stephen L. Backus) and attaches a copy of the Award to the Petition. (Pet., Attachment 8(c).) The Petition demonstrates that on March 8, 2020, the arbitrator issued an award requiring Respondent to pay Petitioners $20,540 principal and $2,800.00 in arbitration fees. Accordingly, Petitioner has complied with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure, section 1285.4.

Conclusion

Petitioners Dominique Olowolate and Matthew Harvey’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 20STCP01834    Hearing Date: October 07, 2020    Dept: 26

Olowolate v. Enriquez, et al.

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1285)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioners Dominique Olowolate and Matthew Harvey’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is CONTINUED TO JANUARY 13, 2021 AT 09:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

ANALYSIS:

Petitioners Dominique Olowolate and Matthew Harvey (“Petitioners”) filed the instant Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award against Javier Enriquez (“Respondent”) on June 3, 2020. To date, no opposition 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 Respondents “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).)

Petitioners have not filed proof of service demonstrating service of the Notice of Hearing or Petition on Respondent. The arbitration agreement does not address the manner in which a petition to confirm arbitration award must be served. (Pet., Attachment 4(c).) Therefore, service must be made in the manner provided by law for service of summons. Without proof of service, the Court cannot find that Petitioner has satisfied the requirements for service of the Notice of Hearing under Code of Civil Procedure, section 1290.4.

Service of the Arbitration Award

Petitioners also fail to demonstrate service of the Arbitration Award as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1283.6. No proof of service is attached to the Arbitration Award. (Pet., Attachment 8(c).) Service of the award in conjunction with the Petition can satisfy the statutory requirements but only if the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4 have been satisfied. (See Murry v. Civil Service Employees Ins. Co. (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 796, 799-800.) As previously noted by the Court, no proof of service of the Petition has been filed. Therefore, the Court cannot find that service of the Petition accomplished service of the Award.

Additionally, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1288, a petition to confirm arbitration must be filed and served no more than four years after the award was served. Until service of the Arbitration Award is demonstrated, the Court cannot find that the requirements of either Code of Civil Procedure sections 1283.6 or 1288 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:

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, which is pursuant to a Homeowner/Contractor Agreement. (Pet., Attachment 4(c).) It also sets forth the name of the Arbitrator (Stephen L. Backus) and attaches a copy of the Award to the Petition. (Pet., Attachment 8(c).) The Petition demonstrates that on March 8, 2020, the arbitrator issued an award requiring Respondent to pay Petitioners $20,540 principal and $2,800.00 in arbitration fees. Accordingly, Petitioner has complied with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure, section 1285.4.

Conclusion

The Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is CONTINUED TO JANUARY 13, 2021 AT 09:30AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE NEW HEARING DATE, PETITIONERS ARE TO FILE AND SERVE SUPPLEMENTAL PAPERS CORRECTING THE DEFECTS NOTED ABOVE. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN THE PETITION BEING DENIED OR PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

Petitioners to give notice of this order and continued hearing date.