This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/29/2021 at 00:54:02 (UTC).

GUARDIAN POOL FENCE SYSTEMS, INC. VS JOE ARREOLA

Case Summary

On 11/27/2019 GUARDIAN POOL FENCE SYSTEMS, INC filed an Other - Arbitration lawsuit against JOE ARREOLA. 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 Disposed - Other Disposed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******5107

  • Filing Date:

    11/27/2019

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Other Disposed

  • Case Type:

    Other - Arbitration

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Petitioner

GUARDIAN POOL FENCE SYSTEMS INC.

Respondent

ARREOLA JOE DBA FIBERSPLASH POOLS

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorney

COWAN JEFFREY

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees)

4/27/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees)

Motion for Attorney Fees - Motion for Attorney Fees

10/5/2020: Motion for Attorney Fees - Motion for Attorney Fees

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

9/4/2020: Memorandum of Costs (Summary) - Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

Judgment - Judgment [Proposed] Judgment in Favor of Guardian Pool Fence Systems, Inc. Re Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award Against Joe Arreola, dba Fibersplash Pools

8/10/2020: Judgment - Judgment [Proposed] Judgment in Favor of Guardian Pool Fence Systems, Inc. Re Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award Against Joe Arreola, dba Fibersplash Pools

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

8/10/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

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

8/6/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

7/20/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Non-Service

7/15/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Non-Service

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Hearing on Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award to August 6, 2020

7/10/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Hearing on Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award to August 6, 2020

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Hearing

6/12/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Hearing

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

6/5/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for [Notice of Continuance Due to COVID-19 State of Emergency Declarations]

5/18/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for [Notice of Continuance Due to COVID-19 State of Emergency Declarations]

Notice of Continuance Due to COVID-19 State of Emergency Declarations - Notice of Continuance Due to COVID-19 State of Emergency Declarations

5/18/2020: Notice of Continuance Due to COVID-19 State of Emergency Declarations - Notice of Continuance Due to COVID-19 State of Emergency Declarations

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Change of Firm Address

4/22/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Change of Firm Address

Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

11/27/2019: Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

11/27/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award - Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

11/27/2019: Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award - Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

11/27/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

16 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/19/2021
  • DocketDeclaration of Kristopher Tayyeb re Non Receipt of Oppostion to Motion for Attorneys Fees; Filed by: Guardian Pool Fence Systems, Inc. (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Attorney Fees scheduled for 04/27/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2020
  • DocketMotion for Attorney Fees; Filed by: Guardian Pool Fence Systems, Inc. (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2020
  • DocketNotice of Entry of Judgment; Filed by: Guardian Pool Fence Systems, Inc. (Petitioner); As to: Joe Arreola (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2020
  • DocketMemorandum of Costs (Summary); Filed by: Guardian Pool Fence Systems, Inc. (Petitioner); As to: Joe Arreola (Respondent); Total Costs: 657.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Judgment [Proposed] Judgment in Favor of Guardian Pool Fence Systems, Inc. Re Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award Against Joe Arreola, dba Fibersplash Pools: Filed By: Guardian Pool Fence Systems, Inc. (Petitioner); Result: Granted; Result Date: 08/20/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2020
  • DocketCourt orders judgment entered for Petitioner Guardian Pool Fence Systems, Inc. against Respondent Joe Arreola DBA Fibersplash Pools on the Petition filed by Guardian Pool Fence Systems, Inc. on 11/27/2019 for the principal amount of $10,374.71, attorney fees of $3,612.85, interest of $856.44, and other $2,125.00 for a total of $16,969.00.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2020
  • DocketNon-Appearance Case Review re lodging of Proposed Judgment scheduled for 08/20/2020 at 02:00 PM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 08/17/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Guardian Pool Fence Systems, Inc. (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2020
  • DocketJudgment [Proposed] Judgment in Favor of Guardian Pool Fence Systems, Inc. Re Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award Against Joe Arreola, dba Fibersplash Pools; Signed and Filed by: Guardian Pool Fence Systems, Inc. (Petitioner); As to: Joe Arreola (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
22 More Docket Entries
  • 03/23/2020
  • DocketReset - Court Unavailable, Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award scheduled for 04/01/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Rescheduled by Court was rescheduled to 06/22/2020 10:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2019
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: Guardian Pool Fence Systems, Inc. (Petitioner); As to: Joe Arreola (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2019
  • DocketHearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award scheduled for 04/01/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2019
  • DocketNotice of Hearing on Petition; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Guardian Pool Fence Systems, Inc. (Petitioner); As to: Joe Arreola (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2019
  • DocketPetition to Confirm Arbitration Award; Filed by: Guardian Pool Fence Systems, Inc. (Petitioner); As to: Joe Arreola (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STCP05107    Hearing Date: April 27, 2021    Dept: 26

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Guardian Pool Fence Systems, Inc.
RESP. PARTY: None
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
(CCP § 1293.2; Civil Code § 1717)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Upon a showing of good cause for the timing of Petitioner Guardian Pool Fence Systems, Inc.’s
Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Petitioner is awarded attorney’s fees of $4,417.50.
ANALYSIS:
On November 14, 2019, an arbitrator issued an Arbitration Award in favor of Guardian Pool Fence
Systems, Inc. (“Petitioner”) and against Joe Arreola, dba Fibersplash Pools (“Respondent”). On
November 27, 2019, Petitioner filed the instant Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (the
“Petition”). The Court granted the Petition on August 6, 2020 and entered the order confirming the
arbitration award and judgment thereon on the same date. Petitioner served notice of the entry of
judgment on September 4, 2020. Petitioner filed a Memorandum of Costs on September 4, 2020 and
the instant Motion for Attorney’s Fees on October 5, 2020. To date, no opposition has been filed.
Discussion
Petitioner moves for attorney’s fees of $1,418.34 and costs of $668.10 pursuant to Civil Code section
1717 and the applicable costs provision in the parties’ arbitration agreement.
Entitlement to Attorney Fees
The statute under which the Petition to Confirm Arbitration was brought allows for the recovery of
costs. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1293.2; MBNA America Bank, N.A. v. Gorman (2006) 147
Cal.App.4th.Supp. 1, 7.) A prevailing party is entitled to recover costs, which can include attorney
fees, as a matter of right. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1032, subd. (a)(4); 1033.5, subd. (a)(10).) This right
may arise out of contract, statute or law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10).) Additionally, a
party prevailing on an action on a contract, such as a petition to confirm arbitration award, is entitled
to attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717, if the contract contains an attorney’s fees provision.
(MBNA America Bank, N.A., supra, 147 Cal.App.4th.Supp. at 7-8.)
It is undisputed that Petitioner is the prevailing party in this action, as the party for whom relief was
granted pursuant to the Petition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4).) As demonstrated by the
Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award, the parties are signatories of a Dealer Agreement whereby
Respondent was to act as a non-exclusive dealer of Petitioner’s products. (Pet., Attachment 4(b).)
Paragraph 18 of the agreement allows the prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees and costs: “If any
action at law or in equity, including an action for injunctive or declaratory relief, or proceeding in
arbitration is brought to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement or of an arbitration
award, the prevailing party will be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in addition to any
other relief to which that party may be entitled.” (Pet., Attachment 4(b), ¶18.) Therefore, Petitioner
has demonstrated it is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees in connection with the instant Petition to
Confirm Arbitration Award.
Timing of Motion
“A notice of motion to claim attorney’s fees for services up to and including the rendition of
judgment in the trial court . . . must be served and filed within the time for filing a notice of appeal
under . . . rules 8.822 and 8.823 in a limited civil case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1702, subd.
(b)(1).) In a limited civil case, a notice of appeal must be filed on or before the earliest of 30 days
after service of a document entitled “Notice of Entry” of judgment or 90 days after the entry of
judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.822, subd. (a)(1).) The Court can extend the time for bringing
a motion upon a showing of good cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1702, subd. (d).) Alternatively,
the Court can grant relief from a missed deadline under Code of Civil Procedure section 473,
subdivision (b). (Lee v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1187, 1192-1195.)CO
Notice of the entry of judgment was served on September 4, 2020, but the instant Motion was not
filed until 31 days later on October 5, 2020. (See Notice of Entry of Judgment, filed 9/4/20, Proof of
Service.) Given that the Motion for Attorney’s Fees was filed only one day late, the Court is inclined
to find good cause for its timing if Petitioner can articulate such cause at the hearing.
Calculation of Attorney Fees
Regarding the attorney’s fees sought, Petitioner seeks an award of $4,417.50 based on 16.2 hours of
time. (Motion, Tayyeb Decl., ¶¶9-10.) The fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the
“lodestar” method, i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly
rate. (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49.) A computation of time spent on a case and the
reasonable value of that time is fundamental to a determination of an appropriate attorneys’ fee
award. The lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on consideration of factors specific to the
case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided. (Ibid.) Such an
approach anchors the trial court’s analysis to an objective determination of the value of the attorney’s
services, ensuring that the amount awarded is not arbitrary. (Id. at 48, n. 23.)
Petitioner’s counsel’s declaration details the work performed in this action, including preparing the
Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award, serving the Petition and Notice of Hearing, drafting notices of
continuance due to COVID-related court closures, attending multiple hearings on the Petition,
preparing the notice of entry of order, preparing the proposed judgment, preparing notice of entry of
judgment, drafting the instant Motion for Attorney’s Fees and attending the hearing on the same.
(Motion, Tayyeb Decl., ¶10.) The number of hours billed is reasonable for an action filed 18 months
ago and brought to a favorable resolution for Petitioner. Additionally, Petitioner’s counsel’s hourly
rate of $250.00 in 2019 and $275.00 in 2020 is in line with other civil practitioners in Los Angeles.
(Id. at ¶¶4-8.) Based on the foregoing lodestar calculation, the Court finds Petitioner is entitled to an
award of $4,417.50 attorney’s fees against Respondent.
Conclusion
Upon a showing of good cause for the timing of Petitioner Guardian Pool Fence Systems, Inc.’s
Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Petitioner is awarded attorney’s fees of $4,417.50.
Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 19STCP05107    Hearing Date: June 26, 2020    Dept: 26

Guardian Pool Fence Systems, Inc. v. Joe Arreola dba Fibersplash Pools, et al.

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1285)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Guardian Pool Fence Systems, Inc.’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 26, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

ANALYSIS:

On November 14, 2019, an arbitrator issued an Arbitration Award in favor of Guardian Pool Fence Systems, Inc. (“Petitioner”) and against Joe Arreola, dba Fibersplash Pools (“Respondent”). On November 27, 2019, Petitioner filed the instant Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (the “Petition”). To date, no response 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 Respondent “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 provide for the manner of service of the Petition and Notice of Hearing, therefore, those documents must be served in the manner provided for service of a Summons. Here, Petitioner filed proof of service of the Petition and Notice of Hearing on Respondent by certified mail with return receipt requested. (Proof of Service, filed 12/5/19.) The Petition and Notice of Hearing were mailed on December 5, 2019. However, service of a summons by certified mail is only deemed complete “on the date of execution of an acknowledgment of receipt of summons.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.30, subd. (c).) No proof of Respondent’s execution of an acknowledgment of receipt is attached to the proof of service. Therefore, Petitioner has not demonstrated complete service of the Petition and Notice of Hearing on Respondent and the Court cannot find that the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4 have been satisfied.

Service of the Arbitration Award and Timing of Service of Petition (CCP §§ 1283.6, 1288, 1288.4)

A copy of the arbitration award, demonstrating service of the same on Respondent by electronic mail on November 14, 2019, is attached to the Petition. (Pet., Attachment 8(c).) However, this does not demonstrate that the Award was served on Respondent as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1283.6, which requires that “[t]he 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.” (CCP § 1283.6.) The agreement does not provide for service of notice by electronic mail. (Pet., Attachment 8(c), ¶12.)

The Court also notes that while proper service of the award with the Petition is sufficient to meet the requirements of CCP section 1283.6 (Murry v. Civil Service Employees Ins. Co. (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 796, 799-800), because service of the Petition has not been shown to be proper (as discussed above) it cannot stand in for service of the arbitration award.

Furthermore, a party seeking a court judgment confirming an arbitration award must file and serve petition no more than four years, but not less than 10 days, after the award is served. (CCP §§ 1288, 1288.4.) As Petitioner has not yet demonstrated proper service of the Petition, the Court cannot determine that it was served less than four years or at least ten (10) days after service of the award.

Therefore, Petitioner has not demonstrated that the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure sections 1283.6, 1288 and 1288.4 regarding service of the award and timing of the Petition 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:

  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.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4.) The Petition complies with the above requirements. It sets forth the nature of the agreement to arbitrate. (Pet., Attachment 4(b).) It also sets forth the name of the Arbitrator, John K. Hart. (Pet., Attachment 4(b).) Finally, the Petition attaches a copy of the Award to the Amended Petition. (Pet., Attachment 8(c).) The Court, therefore, finds the substantive portion of the Petition has been satisfied.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 26, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE NEW HEARING DATE, PETITIONER IS TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL PAPERS CORRECTING THE DEFECTS NOTED ABOVE. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER MAY RESULT IN THE HEARING ON PETITION BEING PLACED OFF CALENDAR OR THE PETITION BEING DENIED.

Moving party to give notice of this order and continued hearing date.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where GUARDIAN POOL FENCE SYSTEMS INC. is a litigant