ISIDRO MIRAMONTES VS MORGAN STANLEY & CO, LLC, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STCP05101    Hearing Date: August 18, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Tue., August 18, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Miramontes v. Morgan Stanley & Co., et al. PET. FILED: 11-27-19

CASE NUMBER: 19STCP05101

PROCEEDINGS: PETITION TO CONFIRM FINRA DISPUTE RESOLUTION ARBITRATION AWARD

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Isidro Miramontes

RESP. PARTY: None

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1285, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Isidro Miramontes’ Petition to Confirm FINRA Dispute Resolution Arbitration Award is GRANTED.

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 14, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of August 14, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On October 22, 2018, Petitioner Isidro Miramontes (“Petitioner”) filed a statement of claim with the Financial Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) Office of Dispute Resolution against Respondents Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC and UBS Financial Services, Inc. (collectively, “Respondents”). (Pet., Exh. 1.) On October 10, 2019, Arbitrator Natalie Panossian-Brasslier (the “Arbitrator”) rendered an award in favor of Petitioner for the expungement of all references to the underlying complaint, occurrence number 1478572, from the Central Registration Depository (“CRD”), CRD No. 2670160 (the “Arbitration Award”). (Id.) The CRD is a database maintained by FINRA for firms and individuals that participate in the U.S. securities industry.

On November 27, 2019, Petitioner filed the instant Verified Petition to Confirm FINRA Dispute Resolution 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. Instead, we restrict our review to whether the award should be vacated under the grounds listed in section 1286.2. [Citations.]’” (Id.)

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 has set forth the nature of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate, attached a copy of FINRA’s arbitration agreement, and submitted a copy of the Arbitration Award, which includes the name of the neutral arbitrator. Thus, the Court finds that Petitioner has satisfied Code of Civil Procedure section 1285.4, subdivisions (a)-(c).

B. 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.

Petitioner filed proof of service demonstrating that the Petition and Notice of Hearing were personally served on Respondents on December 4, 2019. (12/9/19 Proofs of Service.) Accordingly, the Court finds Petitioner has satisfied Section 1290.4.

C. Service of the Arbitration Award (CCP § 1283.6) and Timing of Service of Petition (CCP § 1288)

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.) This requirement may be satisfied by service by the arbitrator, or upon proper service of the Award with the Petition. (See Murry v. Civil Service Employees Ins. Co. (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 796, 799-800.) The Arbitration Award states that it was served on the parties on October 11, 2019, but does not include a proof of service demonstrating how the Award was served. (Pet., Exh. 1.) However, as the Arbitration Award was served with the instant Petition, the Court finds the requirements of Section 1283.6 satisfied.

Furthermore, 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.) Here, the Arbitration Award was initially served on October 11, 2019. Thus, the Petition is timely.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Isidro Miramontes’ Petition to Confirm FINRA Dispute Resolution Arbitration Award is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.