This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/17/2019 at 11:55:45 (UTC).

MICHAEL A. BRENNAN VS NASHIT METRI

Case Summary

On 11/14/2017 MICHAEL A BRENNAN filed an Other - Arbitration lawsuit against NASHIT METRI. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is ELAINE LU. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0322

  • Filing Date:

    11/14/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other - Arbitration

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

ELAINE LU

 

Party Details

Petitioner

BRENNAN MICHAEL A.

Defendant

METRI MARK

Respondent

METRI NASHIT

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorney

BRENNAN MICHAEL ANTHONY

Attorney at Brennan Law Firm

67 E Live Oak Ave Ste 105,

Arcadia, CA 91006

 

Court Documents

Notice of Rejection - Fax Filing

8/31/2018: Notice of Rejection - Fax Filing

Notice of Rejection - Fax Filing

9/10/2018: Notice of Rejection - Fax Filing

Notice of Ruling

9/13/2018: Notice of Ruling

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

2/19/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application TO RESTORE PETITION TO CONFIRM ATTORNEY - CLIENT FEE ARBITRATION AWARD TO COURT'S CALENDAR

3/20/2019: Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application TO RESTORE PETITION TO CONFIRM ATTORNEY - CLIENT FEE ARBITRATION AWARD TO COURT'S CALENDAR

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application TO RESTORE PETITION TO CONFIR...)

3/21/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application TO RESTORE PETITION TO CONFIR...)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application TO RESTORE PETITION TO CONFIR...) of 03/21/2019

3/21/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application TO RESTORE PETITION TO CONFIR...) of 03/21/2019

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter) of 04/30/2019

4/30/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter) of 04/30/2019

Minute Order - Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter)

4/30/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter)

Notice (name extension) - of Continued Trial

3/16/2018: Notice (name extension) - of Continued Trial

Minute Order - (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)

3/16/2018: Minute Order - (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)

Certificate of Mailing for - Minute Order (Nunc Pro Tunc Order) of 03/16/2018

3/16/2018: Certificate of Mailing for - Minute Order (Nunc Pro Tunc Order) of 03/16/2018

Notice (name extension) - of Continued Trial

3/13/2018: Notice (name extension) - of Continued Trial

Certificate of Mailing for - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition) of 01/16/2018

1/16/2018: Certificate of Mailing for - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition) of 01/16/2018

Minute Order - (Hearing on Petition)

1/16/2018: Minute Order - (Hearing on Petition)

Notice (name extension) - of Continued Trial

7/13/2018: Notice (name extension) - of Continued Trial

Petition (name extension) - to confirm

11/14/2017: Petition (name extension) - to confirm

Notice of Hearing on Petition

11/14/2017: Notice of Hearing on Petition

12 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/07/2019
  • Notice NOTICE OF HEARING ON PETITION TO CONFIRM ATTORNEY-CLIENT FEE ARBITRATION AWARD; Filed by: Michael A. Brennan (Petitioner); As to: Nashit Metri (Respondent); Mark Metri (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Hearing on Petition to Confirm Attorney-Client Fee Arbitration Award scheduled for 07/16/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2019
  • Updated -- Ex Parte Application TO RESTORE PETITION TO CONFIRM ATTORNEY - CLIENT FEE ARBITRATION AWARD TO COURT'S CALENDAR: Filed By: Michael A. Brennan (Petitioner); Result: Granted; Result Date: 04/30/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2019
  • Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter) of 04/30/2019; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2019
  • Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application TO RESTORE PETITION TO CONFIR...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application TO RESTORE PETITION TO CONFIR...) of 03/21/2019; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2019
  • Hearing on Ex Parte Application TO RESTORE PETITION TO CONFIRM ATTORNEY - CLIENT FEE ARBITRATION AWARD TO COURT'S CALENDAR scheduled for 03/21/2019 at 01:30 PM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 updated: Result Date to 03/21/2019; Result Type to Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2019
  • Hearing on Ex Parte Application TO RESTORE PETITION TO CONFIRM ATTORNEY - CLIENT FEE ARBITRATION AWARD TO COURT'S CALENDAR scheduled for 03/21/2019 at 01:30 PM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2019
  • Ex Parte Application TO RESTORE PETITION TO CONFIRM ATTORNEY - CLIENT FEE ARBITRATION AWARD TO COURT'S CALENDAR; Filed by: Michael A. Brennan (Petitioner); As to: Nashit Metri (Respondent); Mark Metri (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
18 More Docket Entries
  • 01/18/2018
  • Hearing on Petition scheduled for 03/16/2018 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2018
  • On the Court's own motion, Hearing on Petition scheduled for 01/16/2018 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77 Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion was rescheduled to 03/16/2018 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/16/2018
  • Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Hearing on Petition) of 01/16/2018; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/16/2018
  • Minute Order (Hearing on Petition)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2017
  • Case assigned to Hon. Elaine Lu in Department 77 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2017
  • Hearing on Petition scheduled for 01/16/2018 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2017
  • Petition to confirm; Filed by: Michael A. Brennan (Petitioner); As to: Nashit Metri (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2017
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Michael A. Brennan (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2017
  • Notice of Hearing on Petition; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2017
  • Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 17STCP00322    Hearing Date: October 24, 2019    Dept: 94

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD; MOTION TO DISMISS

(CCP § 1285)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Michael A. Brennan’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is DENIED.

Respondent Nashti Metri’s Motion to Dismiss Notice of Arbitration Decision is DENIED.

RELIEF REQUESTED: Enter judgment against Respondents pursuant to the terms of the arbitration award.

OPPOSITION: None filed as of October 21, 2019.

ANALYSIS:

On October 12, 2016, an arbitrator issued an Arbitration Award in favor of Petitioner Michael A. Brennan (“Petitioner”) against Respondents Nashat N. Metri and Mark N. Metri (collectively, “Respondents”) in the sum of $6,394.25 plus 10% per annum from the thirtieth day after the service of the Arbitration Award, which was October 28, 2016.  On November 14, 2017, Petitioner brought the instant Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (the “Petition”).

The Petition came for hearings twice on January 16 and September 11, 2018.  Both times, the Court found that Petitioner had failed to satisfy the service requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4, which 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.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4.) At the hearing on September 11, 2018, the Court took the Petition off calendar. Afterward, Petitioner brought an ex parte application asking the Court to put the hearing for the Petition. The Court granted the ex parte application on April 30, 2019 and rescheduled a hearing for the Petition for July 16, 2019. On July 16, 2019, the Court determined that service of the Petition still failed to satisfy the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4 and declined to consider it. The Court again continued the hearing to October 24, 2019.

On September 27, 2019, Respondents brought an ex parte application seeking to dismiss the Notice of Arbitration Decision as untimely. The Court continued the Motion to Dismiss to October 24, 2019 to be heard concurrently with the Petition. Petitioner filed an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on September 30, 2019 and sought to lodge a copy of the Arbitration Agreement on October 2, 2019. However, the document lodged on October 2, 2019 does not have the Arbitration Agreement attached.

Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

“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.)

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:

  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.”

(Emphasis added.)

Petitioner indicates the nature of the Arbitration Agreement (Pet., ¶, states the name of the arbitrator (Pet., ¶6) and attaches a copy of the Arbitration Award (Pet., Attach. 6(c)). Therefore, Petitioner has satisfied Code of Civil Procedure section 1285.4, subdivisions (a)-(c).

B. Service of the Arbitration Award (CCP § 1283.6), Petition and Notice of Hearing (CCP § 1290.4)

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.) 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 arbitration award was served on both parties on October 28, 2016. (Pet., Attach. 6(c), p. 6.)

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.”

Despite being provided a fifth opportunity to demonstrate service of the Petition in conformity with section 1290.4, Petitioner fails to do so. The proofs of service attached to the Notice of Continued Hearing filed on July 16, 2019 and Amended Notice of Continued Hearing filed on July 22, 2019 do not indicate service of the Petition, let alone service in the manner required by the Arbitration Agreement or for service of a summons. Nor did Petitioner file a copy of the Arbtiration Agreement, as ordered by the Court.

The requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4 remain unsatisfied.

D. Timeliness of Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

A party may seek a court judgment confirming an arbitration award by filing and serving a petition no more than four years after the award is served.  (CCP §§ 1288.) The petition, however, must be served at least ten (10) days after service of the signed copy of the award. (CCP § 1288.4.) 

As there is no proof of service filed demonstrating when the Petition was served on Respondent, the Court cannot determine that service was complete less than four years after service of the Arbitration Award. The court finds that neither Code of Civil Procedure sections 1288 and 1288.4 are satisfied.

E. Conclusion

As the Court previously explained, “[d]ue process ‘guarantees that any person against whom a claim is asserted in a judicial proceeding shall have the opportunity to be heard and to present his defenses.’ [Citation.]” (Greenspan v. LADT, LLC (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 486, 509.) Given that Petitioner has not afforded Respondents the required due process under Section 1290.4, despite repeated opportunities to do so, the Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is DENIED.

Motion to Dismiss

Respondent Nashit Metri’s Motion to Dismiss for Untimely Notice of Arbitration Decision contends that she was deprived of the opportunity to dispute the Arbitration Award. She contends that because the Award was not served on her until more than 30 days after it was issued, she was deprived of the chance to request a trial in court.

The Motion to Dismiss is improper in that it is not supported by any legal authority. “The memorandum must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.” (Cal. Rule of Court, Rule 3.1113, subd. (b).) Respondent Nasit, therefore, has not provided a legal basis for the Court to dismiss the Notice of Arbitration Decision. The Court further notes that a request to challenge the arbitration decision must be made 30 days after service of the Arbitration Award. (Motion, Exh. B, ¶A.) The date the Arbitration Award was issued, therefore, is irrelevant to the deadline to file papers in court. Respondent Nashit does not contend anything prevented her from filing her challenge to the Arbitration Award within 30 days of its service.

Therefore, the Motion to Dismiss the Notice of Arbitration Decision is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.