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

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STCP05126    Hearing Date: June 24, 2020    Dept: 26

Based on current conditions, including, but not limited to, the spread of Covid-19, the need for social distancing, and the states of emergency having been declared by Governor Gavin Newsom and President Donald Trump, the General Orders issued by the Presiding Judge and Statewide Orders issued by the Chief Justice, no more than six people may be in the courtroom at any given time, in addition to court staff.  Due to overcrowding concerns via COVID-19, the parties shall make every effort to appear telephonically via CourtCall for their scheduled hearing.

Miramontes v. Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC, et al.

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1285)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Isidro Miramontes’ Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is GRANTED. The court orders expungement of all references to the arbitration proceeding from registration records maintained by the Central Registration Depository (“CRD”) for Petitioner Isidro Miramontes.

ANALYSIS:

Petitioner Isidro Miramontes (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award against Respondents Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC, UBS Financial Services Inc. and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“Respondents”) on November 27, 2019. The Petition seeks to confirm the arbitration award issued on November 25, 2019 in favor of Petitioner requiring expungement of all references to the arbitration proceeding from registration records maintained by the Central Registration Depository (“CRD”) for Petitioner. (Pet., Exh. 1.) Respondent FINRA filed a notice of non-opposition on January 17, 2020.

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.)

Discussion

A. Filing Requirements of a Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (CCP § 1285.4)

Code of Civil Procedure section 1285.4 states: “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 arbitrators.

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

(Emphasis added.)

The Court notes that Petitioner has submitted a copy of the Arbitration Agreement, name of the arbitrator, and a copy of the Arbitration Award (Pet., Exhs. 1-4). 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 (CCP § 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 proofs of service showing that the Petition papers and notice of hearing were pesonally served on Respondents on December 4, 2019. (Proofs of Service, filed 12/12/19.) Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner has satisfied Code of Civil Procedure 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 arbitration, 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 Award was served by the arbitrator on November 25, 2019. (Pet., Exh. 1.) This satisfies Code of Civil Procedure section 1283.6.

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. (CCP §§ 1288, 1288.4.) Petitioner has demonstrated that the Petition was served less than four years after service of the signed copy of the award, thereby complying with Code of Civil Procedure section 1288. The Court notes that the Petition was served on December 4, 2019, which was only nine (9) days after service of the Award on November 25, 2019. But as there is no apparent prejudice to Respondents from the Petition being served one day early, the Court finds the failure to strictly comply with Code of Civil Procedure 1288.4 is not a bar to confirmation.

E. Merits of the Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

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.) Petitioner has demonstrated that on November 25, 2019, the arbitrator issued an Arbitration Award in his favor and against Respondents requiring expungement of all references to the arbitration proceeding from registration records maintained by the Central Registration Depository (“CRD”) for Petitioner. (Pet., Exh. 1.) Furthermore, as the Petition is unopposed, there is no basis to find the Award should be corrected or vacated.

Conclusion

Petitioner Isidro Miramontes’ Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is GRANTED. The court orders expungement of all references to the arbitration proceeding from registration records maintained by the Central Registration Depository (“CRD”) for Petitioner Isidro Miramontes.

Moving party is to give notice.