ROBERT LANSING, ET AL. VS CSL 13 ALYSON POURAT, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STCP00854    Hearing Date: April 20, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE:   Tue., April 20, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Lansing, et al. v. Pourat, et al. PET. FILED: 08-17-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STCP00854

PROCEEDINGS:     PETITION TO CONFIRM CONTRACTUAL ARBITRATION AWARD

MOVING PARTY:   Petitioner Magnolia Place Homeowners Association

RESP. PARTY: None

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD  

(CCP § 1286.4)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Magnolia Place Homeowners Association’s Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award is CONTINUED TO JUNE 3, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Petitioner must file and serve supplemental papers as requested herein. Failure to do so may result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] Same as Service of Summons (CCP § 1290.4) NO

OPPOSITION: None filed as of April 16, 2021 [   ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of April 16, 2021 [   ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On December 24, 2019, Arbitrator Thomas Craigo (the “Arbitrator”), through the Contractors State License Board Arbitration Program, issued an award requiring Respondent Complete Pool and Spa, Inc. (“Complete Pool”) to pay Petitioner Magnolia Place Homeowners Association (“Petitioner”) a total of $9,275.00 (the “Arbitration Award”). (Pet., Attach. 8(c).)

On February 28, 2020, Robert Lansing (“Lansing”) filed a petition to vacate the Arbitration Award, in pro per, on behalf of himself and of Respondent Complete Pool. The petition to vacate the Award was denied on September 17, 2020 because of a lack of evidence, because Petitioner was not properly served, and because Respondent Complete Pool, as an entity, did not appear through licensed counsel despite being given an opportunity to do so. (9/17/20 Minute Order.)

Petitioner filed the instant Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award (the “Petition”) on August 17, 2020. No opposition was 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.”  (EHM Productions, supra, at p. 1063-64.)

1. Discussion

A. 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.

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

Petitioner sets forth that the parties were required to submit to mandatory arbitration under Business and Professions Code section 7085. (Pet., ¶ 4, Attach. 4(b).) The Petition also includes a copy of the Arbitration Award, which sets forth the name of the neutral arbitrator. (Id., ¶ 8, Attach. 8(c).) Thus, the filing requirements of Section 1285.4 are satisfied. 

B. Service of the Petition, and Notice of Hearing (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1283.6, 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.

(c) If the arbitration agreement does not provide the manner in which such service shall be made and the person on whom service is to be made has previously appeared in the proceeding or has previously been served in accordance with subdivision (b) of this section, service shall be made in the manner provided in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1010 ) of Title 14 of Part 2 of this code.”

Here, the parties do not have an express arbitration agreement. In addition, the Mandatory Arbitration Submission Letter and Submission to Mandatory Arbitration Form do not specify a manner of service for this Petition. (Pet., Attach. 4(c).)

Mr. Lansing previously appeared in this action in pro per. However, as noted at the July 6, and September 17, 2020 hearings, because Mr. Lansing was a self-represented litigant, he could not appear on behalf of Respondent Complete Pool, a corporation. (7/6/20 Minute Order.) Thus, Respondent Complete Pool never appeared in this action. As such, Petitioner must serve Respondent Complete Pool in the same manner as service of summons.

Petitioner has not done so. Petitioner’s proof of service demonstrates Respondent Complete Pool was served via regular mail. (Pet., Proof of Service.) Service via regular mail is not an accepted method by which to serve a summons and complaint. Thus, the service requirements of Section 1290.4 have not been satisfied.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Magnolia Place Homeowners Association’s Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award is CONTINUED TO JUNE 3, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Petitioner must file and serve supplemental papers as requested herein. Failure to do so may result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 20STCP00854    Hearing Date: September 17, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Thu., September 17, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Lansing, et al. v. Pourat, et al. PET. FILED: 02-28-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STCP00854

PROCEEDINGS: PETITION TO VACATE CONTRACTUAL ARBITRATION AWARD

MOVING PARTY: Petitioners Robert Lansing and Complete Pool and Spa, Inc.

RESP. PARTY: Respondents Alyson Pourat and Todd Silva, and Real Party in Interest, Magnolia Place Homeowners Association

PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1286.4)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioners Robert Lansing and Complete Pool and Spa, Inc.’s Petition to Vacate Contractual Arbitration Award is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

SERVICE:

[ ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) NO

[ ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) NO

[ ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) NO

OPPOSITION: Filed on June 10, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: None filed as of September 15, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background & Discussion

On December 24, 2019, Arbitrator Thomas Craigo (the “Arbitrator”), through the Contractors State License Board Arbitration Program, issued an award requiring Petitioner Complete Pool and Spa, Inc. (“Complete Pool”) to pay Magnolia Place Homeowners Association (“Magnolia”) a total of $9,275.00 (the “Arbitration Award”). (Pet., Attach. 8(c).)

On February 28, 2020, Petitioners Robert Lansing and Complete Pool (“collectively, “Petitioners”) filed the instant Petition to Vacate Contractual Arbitration Award (the “Petition”), in pro per, against Respondents Alyson Pourat and Todd Silva (collectively, “Respondents”). On June 10, 2020, Respondents and Magnolia filed an Opposition.

A hearing on the Petition took place on July 6, 2020. At that time, the Court found that Petitioners did not file a proof of service demonstrating the Petition was properly served and that Petitioners failed to name the entity in whose favor the Arbitration Award was rendered. (7/6/20 Minute Order.) The Court also noted that Petitioner Complete Pool, as a corporation, could not appear in this action in pro per. (Id.) Lastly, the Court noted that Petitioners did not submit any evidence demonstrating the Arbitration Award was improperly rendered. (Id.) For these reasons, the Court continued the hearing, ordered Petitioners to file and serve supplemental papers addressing the noted deficiencies, and warned that failure to do so could result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied. (Id.)

To date, Petitioners have not filed any supplemental papers. Accordingly, the Petition is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners Robert Lansing and Complete Pool and Spa, Inc.’s Petition to Vacate Contractual Arbitration Award is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 20STCP00854    Hearing Date: July 06, 2020    Dept: 25

PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1286.4)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioners Robert Lansing and Complete Pool and Spa, Inc.’s Petition to Vacate Contractual Arbitration Award is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 17, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Petitioner must file and serve supplemental papers correcting the deficiencies identified herein. Petitioner Complete Pool must also be represented by an attorney at the next scheduled hearing. Failure to do obey the Court’s orders may result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE: 

[   ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) NO

[   ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) NO

[   ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) NO

OPPOSITION: Filed on June 10, 2020 [   ] Late [   ] None

REPLY: None filed as of July 1, 2020   [   ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On December 24, 2019, Arbitrator Thomas Craigo (the “Arbitrator”), through the Contractors State License Board Arbitration Program, issued an award requiring Petitioner Complete Pool and Spa, Inc. (“Complete Pool”) to pay Magnolia Place Homeowners Association (“Magnolia”) a total of $9,275.00 (the “Arbitration Award”). (Pet., Attach. 8(c).)

On February 28, 2020, Petitioners Robert Lansing and Complete Pool (“collectively, “Petitioners”) filed the instant Petition to Vacate Contractual Arbitration Award (the “Petition”), in pro per, against Respondents Alyson Pourat and Todd Silva (collectively, “Respondents”) On June 10, 2020, Respondents and Magnolia filed an Opposition. To date, no reply brief has been filed.  

1. Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2 provides, 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 either: (A) failed to disclose within the time required for disclosure a ground for disqualification...; or (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. . . .”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.4, subd. (a).)

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

1. Discussion

A. Service and Timeliness of the Petition

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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4, subds. (a), (b).)

“Proper service of process of a petition or complaint is the means by which a court obtains personal jurisdiction over a party. [Citations.]” (Abers v. Rohrs (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1199, 1206, emphasis added.) In addition, a petition to vacate an arbitration award must be served and filed no later than 100 days after the date of the service of a signed copy of the award on the petitioner. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1288.)

Here, although Respondents filed an Opposition, Petitioners did not file a proof of service that demonstrates the Petition was served in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4. In addition, Petitioners failed to name the correct parties. Specifically, the Arbitration Award was rendered in favor of Magnolia, not Respondents.

B. Corporations Must be Represented by Counsel

Petitioners Lansing, an individual, and Complete Pool, a corporation, filed this Petition, in pro per. However, acorporation may not appear in court except through licensed counsel. Since the passage of the State Bar Act in 1927, persons may represent their own interests in legal proceedings, but may not represent the interests of another unless they are active members of the State Bar. [Citation.]” (Hansen v. Hansen (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 618, 621.) An entity must be represented by a lawyer in legal proceedings and may not represent itself (either directly or through a non-lawyer agent) in litigation, as such an act would be the unauthorized practice of law. (See e.g. Caressa Camille, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101) (corporation); Albion River Watershed Protection Ass’n v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (1993) 20 Cal. App. 4th 34, 37 (unincorporated association); Aulisio v. Bancroft (2014) 230 Cal. App. 4th 1518, 1519-20 (trustee for trust).)

Thus, if Petitioner Complete Pool wishes to continue with this action, it must do so through an attorney.

C. Supporting Evidence

However, Petitioners did not submit any evidence that demonstrates the Arbitration Award was the result or fraud or corruption, or evidence that demonstrates the amount of damages awarded were excessive. Although Petitioners attach a short statement, it cannot be considered as evidence as it is wholly unclear who wrote it, and it is not dated and signed under penalty of perjury. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2015.5.)   

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners Robert Lansing and Complete Pool and Spa, Inc.’s Petition to Vacate Contractual Arbitration Award is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 17, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Petitioner must file and serve supplemental papers correcting the deficiencies identified herein. Petitioner Complete Pool must also be represented by an attorney at the next scheduled hearing. Failure to do obey the Court’s orders may result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 20STCP00854    Hearing Date: July 02, 2020    Dept: 25

PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1286.4)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioners Robert Lansing and Complete Pool and Spa, Inc.’s Petition to Vacate Contractual Arbitration Award is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER17, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Petitioner must file and serve supplemental papers correcting the deficiencies identified herein. Petitioner Complete Pool must also be represented by an attorney at the next scheduled hearing. Failure to do obey the Court’s orders may result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE:

[ ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) NO

[ ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) NO

[ ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) NO

OPPOSITION: Filed on June 10, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: None filed as of July 1, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On December 24, 2019, Arbitrator Thomas Craigo (the “Arbitrator”), through the Contractors State License Board Arbitration Program, issued an award requiring Petitioner Complete Pool and Spa, Inc. (“Complete Pool”) to pay Magnolia Place Homeowners Association (“Magnolia”) a total of $9,275.00 (the “Arbitration Award”). (Pet., Attach. 8(c).)

On February 28, 2020, Petitioners Robert Lansing and Complete Pool (“collectively, “Petitioners”) filed the instant Petition to Vacate Contractual Arbitration Award (the “Petition”), in pro per, against Respondents Alyson Pourat and Todd Silva (collectively, “Respondents”) On June 10, 2020, Respondents and Magnolia filed an Opposition. To date, no reply brief has been filed.

1. Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2 provides, 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 either: (A) failed to disclose within the time required for disclosure a ground for disqualification...; or (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. . . .”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.4, subd. (a).)

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

1. Discussion

A. Service and Timeliness of the Petition

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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4, subds. (a), (b).)

“Proper service of process of a petition or complaint is the means by which a court obtains personal jurisdiction over a party. [Citations.]” (Abers v. Rohrs (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1199, 1206, emphasis added.) In addition, a petition to vacate an arbitration award must be served and filed no later than 100 days after the date of the service of a signed copy of the award on the petitioner. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1288.)

Here, although Respondents filed an Opposition, Petitioners did not file a proof of service that demonstrates the Petition was served in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4. In addition, Petitioners failed to name the correct parties. Specifically, the Arbitration Award was rendered in favor of Magnolia, not Respondents.

B. Corporations Must be Represented by Counsel

Petitioners Lansing, an individual, and Complete Pool, a corporation, filed this Petition, in pro per. However, a corporation may not appear in court except through licensed counsel. Since the passage of the State Bar Act in 1927, persons may represent their own interests in legal proceedings, but may not represent the interests of another unless they are active members of the State Bar. [Citation.]” (Hansen v. Hansen (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 618, 621.) An entity must be represented by a lawyer in legal proceedings and may not represent itself (either directly or through a non-lawyer agent) in litigation, as such an act would be the unauthorized practice of law. (See e.g. Caressa Camille, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101) (corporation); Albion River Watershed Protection Ass’n v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (1993) 20 Cal. App. 4th 34, 37 (unincorporated association); Aulisio v. Bancroft (2014) 230 Cal. App. 4th 1518, 1519-20 (trustee for trust).)

Thus, if Petitioner Complete Pool wishes to continue with this action, it must do so through an attorney.

C. Supporting Evidence

Petitioners argue that the Arbitration Award should be vacated (1) because it was obtained by corruption, fraud, or other unfair means and (2) because the arbitrator exceeded his authority and the award cannot be fairly corrected. (Pet., ¶ 10(c).) Specifically, Petitioners argue that Respondents obtained an award for items not covered under the contract and not listed Respondents’ original complaint, and that Respondents were awarded excessive damages despite a lack of evidence demonstrating such damages. (Pet., p. 7.)

However, Petitioners did not submit any evidence that demonstrates the Arbitration Award was the result or fraud or corruption, or evidence that demonstrates the amount of damages awarded were excessive. Although Petitioners attach a short statement, it cannot be considered as evidence as it is wholly unclear who wrote it, and it is not dated and signed under penalty of perjury. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2015.5.)

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners Robert Lansing and Complete Pool and Spa, Inc.’s Petition to Vacate Contractual Arbitration Award is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 17, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Petitioner must file and serve supplemental papers correcting the deficiencies identified herein. Petitioner Complete Pool must also be represented by an attorney at the next scheduled hearing. Failure to do obey the Court’s orders may result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.