This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/27/2021 at 03:42:40 (UTC).

EPR RECRUITING, INC. VS ARCAMM FIRE PROTECTION, LTD.

Case Summary

On 11/24/2020 EPR RECRUITING, INC filed an Other - Arbitration lawsuit against ARCAMM FIRE PROTECTION, LTD. 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 Disposed - Other Disposed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3898

  • Filing Date:

    11/24/2020

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Other Disposed

  • Case Type:

    Other - Arbitration

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Petitioner

EPR RECRUITING INC.

Respondent

ARCAMM FIRE PROTECTION LTD.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorney

BARDO EVAN L

 

Court Documents

Judgment - Judgment [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

7/8/2021: Judgment - Judgment [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

7/1/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

7/1/2021: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

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

6/28/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

6/1/2021: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW REGARDING SERVICE ON DEFENDANT ARCAMM FIRE PROTECTION, LTD.

6/1/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW REGARDING SERVICE ON DEFENDANT ARCAMM FIRE PROTECTION, LTD.

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Hearing

6/1/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Hearing

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

4/19/2021: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

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

5/25/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)

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

3/30/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

2/16/2021: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF EVAN L. BARDO IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEY FEES IN FAVOR OF EPR RECRUITING, INC.

2/16/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF EVAN L. BARDO IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEY FEES IN FAVOR OF EPR RECRUITING, INC.

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

11/24/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

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

11/24/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

11/24/2020: Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award - Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

11/24/2020: Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award - Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

11/24/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

11/25/2020: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

7 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/08/2021
  • DocketCourt orders judgment entered for Petitioner EPR Recruiting, Inc. against Respondent Arcamm Fire Protection, Ltd. on the Petition filed by EPR Recruiting, Inc. on 11/24/2020 for the principal amount of $17,640.00, attorney fees of $3,000.00, interest of $1,367.96, costs of $3,975.00, and other $1,871.46 for a total of $27,854.42.; Other: Interest shall accrue at the legal rate of 10% per annum

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Judgment [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT: Filed By: EPR Recruiting, Inc. (Petitioner); Result: Granted; Result Date: 07/08/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2021
  • DocketNon-Appearance Case Review Re: Filing of Proposed Order/Judgment scheduled for 07/15/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 07/08/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: EPR Recruiting, Inc. (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: EPR Recruiting, Inc. (Petitioner); As to: Arcamm Fire Protection, Ltd. (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2021
  • DocketNon-Appearance Case Review Re: Filing of Proposed Order/Judgment scheduled for 07/15/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2021
  • DocketHearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award scheduled for 06/28/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 06/28/2021; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: EPR Recruiting, Inc. (Petitioner); As to: Arcamm Fire Protection, Ltd. (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2021
  • DocketDeclaration AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW REGARDING SERVICE ON DEFENDANT ARCAMM FIRE PROTECTION, LTD. Filed by: EPR Recruiting, Inc. (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
9 More Docket Entries
  • 02/16/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: EPR Recruiting, Inc. (Petitioner); As to: Arcamm Fire Protection, Ltd. (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2021
  • DocketDeclaration OF EVAN L. BARDO IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEY FEES IN FAVOR OF EPR RECRUITING, INC. Filed by: EPR Recruiting, Inc. (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: EPR Recruiting, Inc. (Petitioner); As to: Arcamm Fire Protection, Ltd. (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/24/2020
  • DocketPetition to Confirm Arbitration Award; Filed by: EPR Recruiting, Inc. (Petitioner); As to: Arcamm Fire Protection, Ltd. (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/24/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: EPR Recruiting, Inc. (Petitioner); As to: Arcamm Fire Protection, Ltd. (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/24/2020
  • DocketNotice of Hearing on Petition; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/24/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/24/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/24/2020
  • DocketHearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award scheduled for 03/30/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/24/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STCP03898    Hearing Date: May 25, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Tue., May 25, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Chilton/25

CASE NAME: EPR Recruiting, Inc. v. Arcamm Fire Protection, LTD

CASE NUMBER: 20STCP03898 PET. FILED: 11-24-20

NOTICE: NO

PROCEEDINGS: PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner EPR Recruiting, Inc.

RESP. PARTY: None

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1285)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner EPR Recruiting, Inc.’s Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award is CONTINUED ONE FINAL TIME TO JUNE 28, 2021 at 10:00 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 issues noted 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 May 21, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of May 21, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On November 24, 2020, Petitioner EPR Recruiting, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed this Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award (the “Petition”) against Respondent Arcamm Fire Protection, Ltd. (“Respondent”).

At the initial March 30 hearing, the Court noted that Petitioner’s proof of service stated the Petition was mailed to an address in Canada with a return receipt requested. (3/30/21 Minute Order.) The return receipt was not attached to the proof of service. (11/25/20 Proof of Service.) Because the Petition was being served on an international Respondent, the Court requested that Petitioner file supplemental briefing discussing the service requirements for a Canadian Respondent under Code of Civil Procedure section 413.10 and the Hague Convention and demonstrating Petitioner met those requirements. (3/30/21 Minute Order.)

Petitioner filed an amended proof of service on April 19, 2021.

No opposition was 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. Service of the Petition, and Notice of Hearing (Code Civ. Proc., § 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.

(2) Service outside this State shall be made by mailing a copy of the Petition and notice and other papers by registered or certified mail. Personal service is the equivalent of such service by mail. Proof of service by mail shall be made by affidavit showing such mailing together with the return receipt of the United States Post Office bearing the signature of the person on whom service was made…”

(Emphasis added.)

As noted above, Petitioner was ordered to file supplemental papers specifically discussing what the service requirements on a Canadian corporate respondent under California law and the Hague Convention were for the instant Petition. (3/30/21 Minute Order.) Petitioner did not do so.

Instead, Petitioner filed an amended proof of service purporting to show Respondent was “personally” served by Axis Geffen, owner of a private investigation agency, on April 14, 2021 through Yolanda Rose, the office manager and person in charge of the business. (4/19/21 Proof of Service.) Under Paragraph 5 of the form proof of service, Petitioner simply states,

“On April 14, 2021 at 11:40 a.m., via personal service on the party’s authorized agent as authorized by applicable California law pursuant to CCP § 413.10, § 415.10, and § 416.10 in compliance with Article 10(b) of the Hague Service Convention as evidenced by the attached Affidavit of Service Upon Defendant Arcamm Fire Protection, Ltd. Server’s signature and acknowledgment are contained on the attached Affidavit of Service Upon Defendant Arcamm Fire Protection, Ltd.”

Article 10 of the Hague Convention states,

“Provided the State of destination does not object, the present Convention shall not interfere with –

(a) the freedom to send judicial documents by postal channels, directly to persons abroad,

(b) the freedom of judicial officers, officials or other competent persons of the State of origin to effect service of judicial documents directly through the judicial officers, officials or other competent persons of the State of destination,

(c) the freedom of any person interested in a judicial proceeding to effect service of judicial documents directly through the judicial officers, officials, or other competent persons of the State of destination.”

(Convention Done at the Hague, November 15, 1965, (Feb. 10, 1969) T.I.A.S. No. 6638.) (Italics added.)

Petitioner did not discuss whether Canada has raised any objections to any article of the Hague Convention. In addition, it is unclear whether Canadian law requires service by any particular method under the Hague Convention or whether service per California law is acceptable as Petitioner has not discussed it one way or another. Also, Petitioner did not discuss what “competent persons” means under Article 10 of the Hague Convention and why Axis Geffen falls within that definition, thereby authorizing him to effect service. Lastly, Petitioner’s proof of service states Yolanda Rose is Respondent’s “authorized agent,” but based on the attached affidavit, it appears she is only an office manager. (4/19/21 Proof of Service, Affidavit, ¶ 5 [“Ms. Rose identified herself as the Office Manager, most senior person on site and in care and control of the business at the time of service”].) Thus, if Yolanda Rose is not an authorized agent, personal service did not occur under California law.

For all the reasons discussed above, it remains unclear whether service of the Petition and notice of hearing on Respondent, a corporate entity located in Canada, was proper under the Hague Convention. “Failure to comply with the [Hague] Convention renders the service void, even if the defendant has actual notice of the lawsuit. [Citation.]” (Floveyor Internat., Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 794.)

Petitioner is ordered to file and serve supplemental papers clearly discussing all service requirements under the Hague Convention and demonstrating Petitioner met these requirements.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner EPR Recruiting, Inc.’s Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award is CONTINUED ONE FINAL TIME TO JUNE 28, 2021 at 10:00 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 issues noted herein. Failure to do so will result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where EPR RECRUITING INC. is a litigant