This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/20/2019 at 16:12:46 (UTC).

FREEDMAN & TAITELMAN, LLP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP VS JASON LUST

Case Summary

On 07/09/2019 FREEDMAN TAITELMAN, LLP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP filed an Other - Arbitration lawsuit against JASON LUST. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk 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:

    *******2968

  • Filing Date:

    07/09/2019

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Other Disposed

  • Case Type:

    Other - Arbitration

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Petitioner

FREEDMAN & TAITELMAN LLP A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP

Respondent

LUST JASON

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorney

FREEDMAN BRYAN JOEL

 

Court Documents

Judgment - Judgment

11/25/2019: Judgment - Judgment

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

11/12/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)

Memorandum of Costs (Summary) - Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

11/12/2019: Memorandum of Costs (Summary) - Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

11/12/2019: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Non-Opposition to Petition to Confirm Attorney-Client Fee Arbitration Award

11/4/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Non-Opposition to Petition to Confirm Attorney-Client Fee Arbitration Award

Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service) - Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service)

8/19/2019: Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service) - Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service)

Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

7/9/2019: Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award - Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

7/9/2019: Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award - Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

7/9/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

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

7/9/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Summons - Summons on Petition

7/9/2019: Summons - Summons on Petition

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

7/9/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/25/2019
  • DocketUpdated -- Judgment entered on 11/25/2019 ; Status Date changed from 11/12/2019 to 11/25/2019 ; Costs TBD: Yes ; Status changed from Not Entered (pending submission of proposed judgment) to Entered

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2019
  • DocketJudgment; Signed and Filed by: Freedman & Taitelman, LLP, a California limited liability partnership (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2019
  • DocketUpdated -- Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award: Filed By: Freedman & Taitelman, LLP, a California limited liability partnership (Petitioner); Result: Granted; Result Date: 11/12/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2019
  • DocketMemorandum of Costs (Summary); Filed by: Freedman & Taitelman, LLP, a California limited liability partnership (Petitioner); As to: Freedman & Taitelman, LLP, a California limited liability partnership (Petitioner); Jason Lust (Respondent); Total Costs: 285.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Freedman & Taitelman, LLP, a California limited liability partnership (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2019
  • DocketJudgment; Proposed - Received by: Freedman & Taitelman, LLP, a California limited liability partnership (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2019
  • DocketJudgment is to be entered for Petitioner Freedman & Taitelman, LLP, a California limited liability partnership against Respondent Jason Lust on the Petition filed by Freedman & Taitelman, LLP, a California limited liability partnership on 07/09/2019 for the principal amount of $4,313.51 for a total of $4,313.51.; Other: Interest of $1.18 per day starting from December 15, 2018 until the full amount is paid.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2019
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2019
  • DocketHearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award scheduled for 11/12/2019 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 updated: Result Date to 11/12/2019; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/04/2019
  • DocketNotice of Non-Opposition to Petition to Confirm Attorney-Client Fee Arbitration Award; Filed by: Freedman & Taitelman, LLP, a California limited liability partnership (Petitioner); As to: Jason Lust (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/19/2019
  • DocketProof of Mailing (Substituted Service); Filed by: Freedman & Taitelman, LLP, a California limited liability partnership (Petitioner); As to: Jason Lust (Respondent); Mailing Date: 07/24/2019; Service Cost: 90.00; Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/15/2019
  • DocketHearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award scheduled for 11/12/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/15/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2019
  • DocketNotice of Hearing on Petition; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2019
  • DocketSummons on Petition; Issued and Filed by: Freedman & Taitelman, LLP, a California limited liability partnership (Petitioner); As to: Jason Lust (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Freedman & Taitelman, LLP, a California limited liability partnership (Petitioner); As to: Jason Lust (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2019
  • DocketPetition to Confirm Arbitration Award; Filed by: Freedman & Taitelman, LLP, a California limited liability partnership (Petitioner); As to: Jason Lust (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STCP02968    Hearing Date: November 12, 2019    Dept: 94

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION

(CCP § 1285)

ANALYSIS / TENTATIVE RULING:

The Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is GRANTED. Judgment is to be entered as provided in the Arbitration Award in the sum of $4,313.51 with interest of $1.18 per day starting from January 14, 2019 until the full amount is paid. The Court notes that Petitioner also requests costs of suit and attorney fees incurred in bringing this Petition but does not proffer any proof in support thereof. Accordingly, the Court does not award attorney fees or costs incurred in bringing this Petition.

I. Background

This action arises out of the parties’ dispute over attorney fees owed to Petitioner Freedman & Taitelman, LLP (“Petitioner”) for legal services it provided to Respondent Jason Lust (“Respondent”).

On December 6, 2018, the arbitrator, Bertrand E. Christian, (“Arbitrator”) issued an arbitration award (“Arbitration Award”) in favor of Petitioner and against Respondent, which states in relevant part:

“The Arbitrators [sic] finds that the total amount of fees and costs which should have been charged in this matter is: $ 14,813.51

Of which Petitioner is found to have paid $ 10,500.00

In addition, the fee arbitration filing fee shall be allocated:

Petitioners: $ 290.90

Respondent: $ 0.00

For a net amount of: $ 4,603.51

Accordingly, the following award is made:

Petitioner Justin Lust shall pay Respondent Freedman & Taitelman LLP the sum of $ 4,313.51

plus, interest in the amount of 10% per annum from the 30th day after the date of service of this award.” (Attachment 6(c), p. 6.)

After the award was served by mail on the parties on December 10, 2018, Petitioner filed a Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (“Petition”) on July 7, 2019.

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.” (Ibid.)

III. Discussion

 

A. Filing Requirements (CCP § 1285.4)

CCP § 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.”

Petitioner has submitted a copy of the Arbitration Award which states that Respondent appeared in person without a legal representative and agreed to non-binding arbitration and Petitioner was represented by Sean M. Hardy, and agreed to non-binding arbitration (Attachment 6(c), p. 1); name of the arbitrator (Attachment 6(c), p. 1), and a copy of the Arbitration Award (Attachment 6(c)). Accordingly, Petitioner has satisfied the filing requirements of CCP § 1285.4.

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

CCP § 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.”  (Italics added.)

CCP § 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.”

Petitioner has submitted proof that the arbitrators served the Arbitration Award on Respondent by mail. (Attachment 6(c), p. 7.) Petitioner also offers proof that the Notice of Petition and Petition were served by mail after substituted service was made, after two prior attempts to personally serve Respondent at his home address. (POS filed 8/19/19.) The proof of service reflects that the Petition and notice of hearing were served on Respondent by substituted service on Respondent’s housemate, Jim Arnett, on July 24, 2019 and the papers were subsequently mailed to Respondent’s address on July 30, 2019. (Ibid.) Thus, CCP §§ 1283.6 and 1290.4 have been satisfied.

C. Timeliness of Petition

A party may seek a court judgment confirming an arbitration award by filing and serving a petition at least 10 days, but no more than four years after the award is served.  (CCP §§ 1288, 1288.4.) 

Because the Petition was filed and served about seven months after the Arbitration Award was served, it is timely under CCP §§ 1288, 1288.4.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is GRANTED. Judgment is to be entered as provided in the Arbitration Award in the sum of $4,313.51 with interest of $1.18 per day starting from December 15, 2018 until the full amount is paid.

The Court notes that Petitioner also requests costs of suit and attorney fees incurred in bringing this Petition but does not proffer any proof in support thereof. Accordingly, the Court does not award attorney fees or costs incurred in bringing this Petition.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.