This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/04/2019 at 04:19:42 (UTC).

GAGIK HARUTYUNAN VS MO GARIB, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 05/29/2019 GAGIK HARUTYUNAN filed an Other - Arbitration lawsuit against MO GARIB. 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 Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2110

  • Filing Date:

    05/29/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other - Arbitration

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Petitioner

HARUTYUNAN GAGIK

Respondents

GARIB MO

PARADISE PROPERTIES INVESTMENT LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorney

DEPAOLI DAVID A.

 

Court Documents

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

10/2/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

5/29/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award - Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

5/29/2019: Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award - Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

5/29/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

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

5/29/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

5/29/2019: Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/16/2019
  • Hearing12/16/2019 at 10:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Petition (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2019
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award scheduled for 10/02/2019 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 12/16/2019 10:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2019
  • DocketHearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award scheduled for 12/16/2019 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2019
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2019
  • DocketHearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award scheduled for 10/02/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • DocketPetition to Confirm Arbitration Award; Filed by: Gagik Harutyunan (Petitioner); As to: Mo Garib (Respondent); Paradise Properties Investment, LLC (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Gagik Harutyunan (Petitioner); As to: Mo Garib (Respondent); Paradise Properties Investment, LLC (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • DocketNotice of Hearing on Petition; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STCP02110    Hearing Date: June 23, 2020    Dept: 25

PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

(CCP §§ 1281.2, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Gagik Harutyunyan’s Petition for Order to Compel Arbitration and to Appoint a Neutral Arbitrator is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 4, 2020 at 9:00 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 June 17, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of June 17, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On May 29, 2019, Petitioner Gagik Harutyunyan (“Petitioner”) initiated this action by filing a Verified Petition for Order to Compel Arbitration and to Appoint a Neutral Arbitrator against Respondents Mo Garib (“Garib”) and Paradise Properties Investment, LLC (collectively, “Respondents”).

The Petition initially came up for hearing on October 2, 2019, at which time the Court found it lacked personal jurisdiction because Petitioner did not file a proof of service demonstrating Respondents were properly served. (10/2/19 Minute Order.) Petitioner was ordered to serve the Petition in the manner prescribed by Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4 and file a proof of service demonstrating the same before the next hearing scheduled for December 16, 2019. (Id.) As Petitioner failed to file the requested proof of service by December 16, 2019, the Court placed the Petition off calendar. (12/16/19 Minute Order.)

On December 17, 2019, Petitioner filed two Verified Petitions for Order to Compel Arbitration and to Appoint Neutral Arbitrator (the “Petition”), one of which appears to be a duplicate filing.

  1. Legal Standard

“On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, unless it determines that: (a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or (b) Grounds exist for the revocation of the agreement.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1281.2(a)-(b).) As with other types of agreements, “[t]he failure of the [party] to carefully read the agreement and the amendment is not a reason to refuse to enforce the arbitration provisions.” (Powers v. Dickson, Carlson & Campillo (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1115.) “California law, ‘like [federal law], reflects a strong policy favoring arbitration agreements and requires close judicial scrutiny of waiver claims.’” (Wagner Const. Co. v. Pacific Mechanical Corp. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 19, 31.) If the court orders arbitration, then the court shall stay the action until arbitration is completed. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.)

  1. Discussion

A. Service of the Petition

Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4 provides, in relevant 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 the 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. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, if service is made in the manner provided in this paragraph, the petition may not be heard until at least 30 days after the date of such service.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4, subd. (a), (b)(1)-(2).)

On May 22, 2020, Petitioner filed a proof of service for the Petition to Compel Arbitration that was placed off calendar in December 2019. (5/29/20 Proof of Service.) However, no proof of service has been filed demonstrating that the instant Petition to Compel Arbitration has been properly served on Respondents. Notably, Petitioner has demonstrated a pattern of failing to comply with the Code of Civil Procedure and with the Court’s orders. Should Petitioner fail to file a proof of service at least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, the Petition will be placed off calendar.

B. Merits

For the sake of completeness, the Court notes that although the Residential Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”) Petitioner submits in support of his Petition contains an arbitration provision, it does not demonstrate Respondents are parties to this Agreement. Indeed, the only parties identified in the Agreement are Petitioner, Signature Real Estate, the listing agent, and American Realty Centre, Inc., the selling agent. (Id.) Thus, Petitioner should file and serve supplemental papers demonstrating Respondents are bound by this Agreement.

  1. Conclusion & Order

 

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Gagik Harutyunyan’s Petition for Order to Compel Arbitration and to Appoint a Neutral Arbitrator is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 4, 2020 at 9:00 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: 19STCP02110    Hearing Date: December 16, 2019    Dept: 94

Harutyunan v. Garib, et al.

PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

(CCP § 1281.2)

TENTATIVE RULING:

For lack of service, Petitioner Gagik Harutyunyan’s Petition to Compel Arbitration is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

Pursuant to CCP § 1290, a party may initiate an action by petitioning the Court to resolve an arbitral issue.  As such, Petitioner Gagik Harutyunyan (“Petitioner”) initiate this action with a Petition to Compel Respondents Mo Garib and Paradise Properties Investment, LLC (collectively, “Respondents”) to Submit to Arbitration (the “Petition”) on May 29, 2019.  Notably, no opposition or reply has been filed.

II. Discussion

Because Petitioner initiated this action by way of a petition, he must serve his Petition in the manner prescribed by CCP § 1290.4.  “Proper service of process of a petition or complaint is the means by which a court obtains personal jurisdiction over a party.  [Citations.]”  (Abers v. Rohrs (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1199, 1206, emphasis 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.”

manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action” as Respondents have not made a general appearance in this action. 

At the initial hearing on October 2, 2019, the Court noted that there was no proof of service to establish that service was effectuated in such manner and found it could not consider the Petition. The Court ordered Petitioner is ordered to serve the Petition in the manner required by CCP § 1290.4(a) and file a proof of service of the same at least 16 court days before the new hearing date. On November 18, 2019, Petitioner filed a “Notice of Continued Hearing” which indicated only that the Notice of Continued Hearing was served on Respondent by mail.

As no proof of service of the Petition has been filed, nor proof of service of the Notice of Hearing in conformity with section 1290.4, the Petition is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer DEPAOLI DAVID ANTHONY