This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/03/2020 at 03:18:14 (UTC).

ORKHON ONKHUDAI VS CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER

Case Summary

On 03/04/2020 ORKHON ONKHUDAI filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER. 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 Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2138

  • Filing Date:

    03/04/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

ONKHUDAI ORKHON

Defendant

CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

HATCH RYAN EPHRAIM

Defendant Attorney

MOSELY KATHRYN SUE

 

Court Documents

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

3/4/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

3/4/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

3/4/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint - Complaint

3/4/2020: Complaint - Complaint

Summons - Summons on Complaint

3/4/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Trial Counsel by defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

4/29/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Trial Counsel by defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

4/29/2020: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

4/29/2020: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

Motion to Strike (not initial pleading) - Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

4/29/2020: Motion to Strike (not initial pleading) - Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

4/6/2020: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Amended Complaint - Amended Complaint

4/6/2020: Amended Complaint - Amended Complaint

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/08/2023
  • Hearing03/08/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2021
  • Hearing09/01/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2020
  • DocketDemurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10); Filed by: Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2020
  • DocketDeclaration of Trial Counsel by defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center; Filed by: Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2020
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by: Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2020
  • DocketMotion to Strike (not initial pleading); Filed by: Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Amended Complaint 1st: Name Extension: 1st; As To Parties changed from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Defendant) to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: Orkhon Onkhudai (Plaintiff); As to: Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2020
  • DocketAmended Complaint; Filed by: Orkhon Onkhudai (Plaintiff); As to: Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/01/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 03/08/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Orkhon Onkhudai (Plaintiff); As to: Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Orkhon Onkhudai (Plaintiff); As to: Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Orkhon Onkhudai (Plaintiff); As to: Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC02138    Hearing Date: November 09, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Mon., November 9, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Home Remodeling Giant, et al. v. Cunningham

CASE NUMBER: 20STCP00350 (lead) | 20STCP00399 PET. (1) FILED: 01-28-20

NOTICE: OK PET. (2) FILED: 01-30-20

PROCEEDINGS: (1) PETITION TO VACATE CONTRACTUAL ARBITRATION AWARD

MOVING PARTY: Stanislav Filatov dba Home Remodeling Giant

RESP. PARTY: Lauran Cunningham erroneously sued as Lauren Cunningham

PROCEEDINGS: (2) PETITION TO CONFIRM CONTRACTUAL ARBITRATION AWARD

MOVING PARTY: Lauran Cunningham and Patrick Cunningham

RESP. PARTY: None

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD; PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1285, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

  1. Stanislav Filatov’s Petition to Vacate Contractual Arbitration Award is DENIED.

  1. Lauran and Patrick Cunningham’s Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award is GRANTED. Judgment to be entered against Stanislav Filatov dba Home Remodeling Giant pursuant to the Arbitration Award. The Cunninghams to file a proposed judgment within ten (10) days of this order.

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

Petition to Vacate Contractual Arbitration Award

OPPOSITION: Filed on August 6, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: None filed as of November 5, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award

OPPOSITION: None filed as of November 5, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of November 5, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On October 28, 2019, Arbitrator Daniel Smith (the “Arbitrator”) with the Contractor’s State License Board Arbitration Program rendered an award in favor of Lauran (“Lauran”) and Patrick (“Patrick”) Cunningham (collectively, the “Cunninghams”) and against Stanislav Filatov (“Filatov”) dba Home Remodeling Giant (“HRG”) in the amount of $8,0750.00 (the “Arbitration Award”). (Pet. to Confirm, Attach. 8(c).) The Arbitrator also denied Filatov’s claim for an outstanding balance, finding Filatov had been paid in excess of value of work performed. (Id.)

Filatov filed the instant Petition to Vacate the Contractual Arbitration Award (the “Petition to Vacate”) on January 28, 2020 against Lauran only, erroneously named as Lauren Cunningham. Lauran filed a Response to the Petition on August 6, 2020.

In a separate action, Case No. 20STCP00399, the Cunninghams filed a Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award (the “Petition to Confirm”). Filatov did not file a response.

On August 31, 2020, the Court found this case and Case No. 20STCP00399, related and designated this action as the lead case. (8/31/20 Minute Order.) On September 1, the Court continued the hearing on the Petition to Confirm. (9/1/20 Minute Order.)

  1. Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award

A. Legal Standard

“Under California law, the scope of judicial review of an arbitration award is very narrow. [Citation.] Consistent with this limited role, a court may vacate an arbitral award only on certain statutorily enumerated grounds. [Citation.] These are laid out in the Code of Civil Procedure, and reflect not error in the merits of the decision, but “ ‘circumstances involving serious problems with the award itself, or with the fairness of the arbitration process.’ [Citation.]” (VVA-TWO, LLC v. Impact Development Group, LLC (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 985, 998.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2, which states in pertinent part:

(a) Subject to Section 1286.4, the court shall vacate the award if the court determines any of the following:

(1) The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means.

(2) There was corruption in any of the arbitrators.

(3) The rights of the party were substantially prejudiced by misconduct of a neutral arbitrator.

(4) The arbitrators exceeded their powers and the award cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy submitted.

(6) An arbitrator making the award . . . (B) was subject to disqualification upon grounds specified in Section 1281.91 but failed upon receipt of timely demand to disqualify himself or herself as required by that provision. . . .

A petition to vacate an arbitration award must be filed and served no later than 100 days after the date of the service of a signed copy of the award on the petition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1288.)

B. Discussion

Filatov’s Motion is timely. Filatov seeks to vacate the Arbitration Award on the basis that the Arbitration Award was obtained by corruption, fraud, or other unfair means and that the Arbitrator exceeded his authority. (Pet. To Vacate, ¶ 10(c).) First, the Court notes that Filatov did not attach any documentary evidence to his Petition. More importantly, his Petition does not demonstrate that the Award was obtained through corruption, fraud, or other means. Rather, it appears that Filatov disagrees with the Arbitrator’s decision and is seeking to challenge it here. Filatov also argues he believes his evidence was overlooked or ignored. (Id. at Attach. 10d(2).) However, section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(5) “does not contemplate vacation of an award merely because arbitrators refuse to consider evidence they find legally irrelevant, even if the irrelevance determination rests upon an incorrect legal foundation.” (Id. at p. 369.) This is important because arbitrators are allowed to make mistakes in rendering their award, and parties are aware of this and agree to be bound by the decision. (Id. at p. 370-71.)

For these reasons, Filatov’s Petition to Vacate the Contractual Arbitration Award is DENIED.

  1. Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

A. 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.) Ordinarily, “[n]either 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 at p. 1063-64.)

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

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

Here, the Cunninghams submit a copy of the parties' Construction Contract, which includes an arbitration provision, and a copy of the Arbitration Award, which includes the name of the neutral Arbitrator. (Pet. to Confirm, Attach. 4(b) and 8(c).) Thus, the Petition satisfies Section 1285.4.

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

Code of Civil Procedure, section 1283.6 provides 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.”  (Italics added.)

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.” (Italics added.)

The Cunninghams filed a proof of service demonstrating they served Filatov by substitute service at his business address on February 7, 2020. (2/26/20 Proof of Service.) The Cunninghams also submitted a copy of the Arbitrator’s proof of service, demonstrating the California State License Board served a copy of the Arbitration Award on the parties on October 28, 2019 via certified mail. (Pet., Attach. 8(c).) Thus, sections 1283.6 and 1290.4 are satisfied.

D. Timing of the Petition (CCP §§ 1288, 1288.4)

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 Cunninghams filed the Petition to Confirm at least 10 days, but no more than 4 years, after the Arbitration Award was initially served on October 28, 2019. Thus, they have satisfied the timing requirements Sections 1288 and 1288.4.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons:

  1. Stanislav Filatov’s Petition to Vacate Contractual Arbitration Award is DENIED.

  1. Lauran and Patrick Cunningham’s Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award is GRANTED. Judgment to be entered against Stanislav Filatov dba Home Remodeling Giant pursuant to the Arbitration Award. The Cunninghams to file a proposed judgment within ten (10) days of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MOSELY KATHRYN