This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/13/2020 at 06:16:22 (UTC).

GOLDBERG & GAGE VS MARK TORNOW

Case Summary

On 04/23/2020 GOLDBERG GAGE filed an Other - Arbitration lawsuit against MARK TORNOW. 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:

    *******1487

  • Filing Date:

    04/23/2020

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Other Disposed

  • 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

Petitioner

GOLDBERG & GAGE

Respondent

TORNOW MARK

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorney

COLE MARSHALL RYAN

Respondent Attorney

WESTRUP DUANE

 

Court Documents

Judgment - Judgment Proposed Judgment

8/27/2020: Judgment - Judgment Proposed Judgment

Notice (name extension) - Notice Notice of Entry of Judgment

9/14/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice Notice of Entry of Judgment

Notice (name extension) - Notice Petitioner Goldberg & Gage's Notice of Non-Opposition of Respondent Mark Tornow to Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

8/20/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice Petitioner Goldberg & Gage's Notice of Non-Opposition of Respondent Mark Tornow to Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

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

8/27/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

8/27/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

General Denial - General Denial

6/26/2020: General Denial - General Denial

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

5/8/2020: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award - Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

4/23/2020: Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award - Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

Summons - Summons on Petition

4/23/2020: Summons - Summons on Petition

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

4/23/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

4/23/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

4/23/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

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

4/23/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

1 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/14/2020
  • DocketNotice Notice of Entry of Judgment; Filed by: Goldberg & Gage (Petitioner); As to: Mark Tornow (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Judgment Proposed Judgment: Filed By: Goldberg & Gage (Petitioner); Result: Granted; Result Date: 09/01/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2020
  • DocketCourt orders judgment entered for Petitioner Goldberg & Gage against Respondent Mark Tornow on the Petition filed by Goldberg & Gage on 04/23/2020 for the principal amount of $21,700.06 for a total of $21,700.06.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Goldberg & Gage (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2020
  • DocketHearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award scheduled for 08/27/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 08/27/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award: Filed By: Goldberg & Gage (Petitioner); Result: Granted; Result Date: 08/27/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2020
  • DocketNotice Petitioner Goldberg & Gage's Notice of Non-Opposition of Respondent Mark Tornow to Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award; Filed by: Goldberg & Gage (Petitioner); As to: Mark Tornow (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2020
  • DocketGeneral Denial; Filed by: Mark Tornow (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2020
  • DocketHearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award scheduled for 08/27/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2020
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Goldberg & Gage (Petitioner); As to: Mark Tornow (Respondent); Service Date: 05/08/2020; Service Cost Waived: Yes

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2020
  • DocketPetition to Confirm Arbitration Award; Filed by: Goldberg & Gage (Petitioner); As to: Mark Tornow (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Goldberg & Gage (Petitioner); As to: Mark Tornow (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2020
  • DocketSummons on Petition; Issued and Filed by: Goldberg & Gage (Petitioner); As to: Mark Tornow (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Goldberg & Gage (Petitioner); As to: Mark Tornow (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STCP01487    Hearing Date: August 27, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Thu., August 27, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Goldberg & Gage v. Tornow PET. FILED: 04-23-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STCP01487

NOTICE: NO (notice of hearing)

PROCEEDINGS: PETITION TO CONFIRM CONTRACTUAL ARBITRATION AWARD

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Goldberg & Gage

RESP. PARTY: None

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1285)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Goldberg & Gage’s Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award is GRANTED ON THE CONDITION THAT, before the hearing, Petitioner files a proof of service demonstrating it gave Respondent adequate notice of this hearing.

Otherwise, the hearing will be CONTINUED TO NOV. 2, 2020_ 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 may result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of August 25, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of August 25, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On June 15, 2016, Petitioner Goldberg & Gage (“Petitioner”) and Respondent Mark Tornow (“Respondent”) entered into a Revised Attorney-Client Retainer Agreement (the “Agreement”).

On April 9, 2020, Arbitrator the Hon. Howard L. Halm (Ret.) (the “Arbitrator”) with ADR Services, Inc. rendered an arbitration award requiring Respondent to pay Petitioner $21,700.06, based on $10,000 in attorney’s fees and $11,700.06 in costs (the “Arbitration Award”). (Pet., Attach. 8(c).)

On April 23, 2020, Petitioner filed the instant Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award (the “Petition”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

  1. 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.)

  1. Discussion

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

(c) Set forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any.”

Petitioner submits a copy of the parties’ Agreement, which includes an arbitration provision, and a copy of the Arbitration Award, which includes the name of the neutral Arbitrator. (Pet., Attach. 4(b) and 8(c).) Thus, Petitioner has satisfied Code of Civil Procedure, section 1285.4.

B. Service of the Petition and Notice of Hearing

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 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 a proof of service demonstrating the Petition was electronically served on Respondent’s counsel. (5/8/20 Proof of Service.) The proof of service also includes an email chain demonstrating Respondent’s counsel agreed to accept service via email at jleon@westrupassociates.com after Petitioner’s counsel explained he was unable to personally serve the Petition due to office closures related to the COVID-19 shelter in place orders. (Id.)

Although Respondent has demonstrated that it served the Petition on Respondent pursuant to the parties’ agreement, it did not serve a Notice of Hearing. Thus, the Court cannot determine whether Respondent was given adequate notice of this hearing.

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 appellant did not demonstrate it was prejudiced by said statutory violation].)

Here, ADR Services, Inc. served both parties via email on April 9, 2020. (Pet., Attach 8(c).) Respondent was also served with a copy of the Arbitration Award with this Petition on May 8, 2020. (5/8/20 Proof of Service.) Indeed, “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 Respondent has 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 April 9, 2020, and this Petition was filed more than 10 days later, on April 23, 2020.

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

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Goldberg & Gage’s Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award is GRANTED ON THE CONDITION THAT, before the hearing, Petitioner files a proof of service demonstrating it gave Respondent adequate notice of this hearing.

Otherwise, the hearing will be CONTINUED TO NOV. 2, 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 may result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.