STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS MARIO VALENZUELA RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC06860    Hearing Date: February 25, 2021    Dept: 25

Case Number: 20STCP03509    Hearing Date: February 25, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Fri., February 26, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Greenstone v. UBS Financial Services, Inc., et al.

CASE NUMBER: 20STCP03509 PET. FILED: 12-08-20

PROCEEDINGS: VERIFIED PETITION TO CONFIRM FINRA ARBITRATION AWARD

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Michael Greenstone

RESP. PARTY: None

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1285 et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Because Petitioner did not serve the Petition as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4, the hearing is CONTINUED TO APRIL 27, 2921 10:00 at a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing Petitioner must file a proof of service demonstrating Respondent UBS was properly served with the Petition and Notice of Hearing. 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] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of February 24, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of February 24, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On July 21, 2020, arbitrator Robert E. Anderson (the “Arbitrator”) with FINRA Dispute Resolution Services issued an Arbitration Award in favor of Petitioner Michael F. Greenstone (“Petitioner”) and against UBS Financial Services, Inc. (“UBS”). The Award requires the expungement of Occurrence Number 1486144 from the Central Registration Depository (“CRD”). The CRD is a database maintained by FINRA for firms and individuals that participate in the U.S. securities industry.

On October 23, 2020, Petitioner filed the instant Verified Petition to Confirm FINRA Dispute Resolution Arbitration Award (the “Petition”) against Respondents UBS and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”). 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)

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 has attached a copy of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate their dispute with FINRA (Pet., ¶¶ 3-6, Exhs. 2, 3), and attached a copy of the Arbitration Award, which includes the name of the neutral Arbitrator (Id., Exh. 1). Thus, Petitioner has satisfied Section 1285.4.

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.

Here, the arbitration agreements submitted by Petitioner do not specify the manner in which the Petition and Notice of Hearing must be served. Thus, the Petition and Notice of Hearing must be served in the same manner as a summons. A summons must be served personally, by substitute service, by mail coupled with an acknowledgment of receipt, or by publication. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.10, et seq.) Respondent FINRA was personally served on October 27, 2020. (11/10/20 FINRA Proof of Service.) Respondent UBS was only electronically served with the Petition and Notice of Hearing on October 26, 2020. (11/10/20 UBS Proof of Service.) A summons cannot be served electronically, so this is insufficient to meet the service requirements of Section 1290.4

1. Conclusion & Order

Because Petitioner did not serve the Petition as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4, the hearing is CONTINUED TO APRIL 27, 2021 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 a proof of service demonstrating Respondent UBS was properly served with the Petition and Notice of Hearing. Failure to do so may result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.