STEPHEN RANK, ET AL. VS ROBERT D LYONS

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STCP03674    Hearing Date: May 13, 2021    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

MOVING PARTY: Petitioners Stephen Rank and Vicki Rank, in pro per

RESP. PARTY: None

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1285)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioners Stephen Rank and Vicki Rank’s Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award is GRANTED. Petitioners are to file a proposed judgment within ten (10) days.

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 May 11, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of May 11, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On September 11, 2020, Arbitrator Daniel Smith (the “Arbitrator”) with the Contractors State License Board Arbitration Program issued an arbitration award requiring Respondent Robert D. Lyons (“Respondent”) to pay Petitioners Stephen and Vicki Rank (“Petitioners”) the sum of $13,707.00 (the “Arbitration Award”). (Pet., ¶ 8, Attach. 8(c).)

On November 6, 2020, Petitioners filed the instant Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award (the “Petition”) against Respondent. No opposition was filed.

The initial March 12 hearing was continued because Petitioners did not file a proof of service. (3/12/21 Minute Order.) Petitioners were ordered to serve Respondent with the Petition and Notice of Hearing and to file a proof of service. (Id.)

Petitioners filed a proof of service on March 17, 2021.

II. 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.)

III. Discussion

A. Filing Requirements (Code Civ. Proc., § 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.”

Petitioners explain the parties’ dispute was subject to mandatory arbitration by the Contractors State Licensing Board. (Pet., ¶ 4(c).) The Petition also includes a copy of the Arbitration Award, which sets forth the name of the Arbitrator. (Id., ¶¶ 6, 8, Attach. 8(c).) Thus, the filing requirements of Section 1285.4 have been satisfied.

B. Service of the Arbitration Award & Timeliness of Petition (CCP §§ 1283.6, 1288, 1288.4)

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.) Here, Stephanie Felton with the Contractors State License Board Arbitration Program served the parties with the Arbitration Award via certified mail on September 11, 2020. (Pet., Attach. 8(c).)

In addition, 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.) As noted, the parties were first served with the Award on September 11, 2020, and this Petition was filed more than ten days later, on November 6, 2020.

Thus, Petitioners have satisfied the requirements of Sections 1283.6, 1288, and 1288.4.

C. Service of the Petition, and Notice of Hearing (Code Civ. Proc., §1290.4; Bus. & Prof. Code § 7085.5)

Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4, the statute governing proper service of this Petition 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.

Business and Professions Code section 7085.5, however, permits service via regular mail addressed to the party or their attorney at their last known address in cases involving the Contractors State License Board. (Bus. & Prof. Code section 7085.5, subd. (p)(1).)

Petitioners’ proof of service demonstrates the Petition, Notice of Hearing, and the Court’s March 12 Minute Order were served on Respondent via regular mail on March 17, 2021 at 1028 North Ave., #63, Los Angeles, CA 90042, the same address at which the Arbitration Award was served. (Pet., Attach. 8(c).)

Thus, Petitioners have satisfied the service requirements for this Petition and Notice of Hearing.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners Stephen Rank and Vicki Rank’s Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award is GRANTED. Petitioners are to file a proposed judgment within ten (10) days.

Petitioners are ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 20STCP03674    Hearing Date: March 12, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Fri., March 12, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Rank, et al. v. Lyons PET. FILED: 11-06-20

PROCEEDINGS: PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

MOVING PARTY: Petitioners Stephen Rank and Vicki Rank, in pro per

RESP. PARTY: None

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1285)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioners Stephen Rank and Vicki Rank’s Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award is CONTINUED TO MAY 13, 2021 AT 10:00 A.M. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Petitioners must file a proof of service demonstrating the Petition was properly served on Respondent. Failure to do so 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: None filed as of March 10, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of March 10, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background & Discussion

On November 6, 2020, Petitioners Stephen Rank and Vicki Rank (“Petitioners”) filed the instant Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award (the “Petition”) against Respondent Robert D. Lyons (“Respondent”). No opposition was filed.

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Petitioners did not file a proof of service demonstrating the Petition was properly served. Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4, the statute governing proper service of this Petition 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.

Petitioners are ordered to file a proof of service demonstrating Respondent was served with the Petition and notice of hearing in accordance with Section 1290.4

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners Stephen Rank and Vicki Rank’s Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award is CONTINUED TO MAY 13, 2021 AT 10:00 A.M. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Petitioners must file a proof of service demonstrating the Petition was properly served on Respondent. Failure to do so may result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.