On 04/10/2019 STEVE M ENGLEBRECHT filed an Other - Arbitration lawsuit against BRIARWOOD BUILDERS INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WENDY CHANG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
ENGLEBRECHT STEVE M
BRIARWOOD BUILDERS INC.
7/19/2019: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order
5/7/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service
4/10/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order
4/10/2019: Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award - Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award
4/10/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet
4/10/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
4/10/2019: Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition
Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Petition (name extension)Read MoreRead Less
DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award scheduled for 08/14/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion was rescheduled to 09/25/2019 08:30 AMRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: STEVE M ENGLEBRECHT (Petitioner); As to: BRIARWOOD BUILDERS INC. (Respondent); Service Date: 04/23/2019; Service Cost: 75.00; Service Cost Waived: NoRead MoreRead Less
DocketHearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award scheduled for 08/14/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94Read MoreRead Less
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk CourthouseRead MoreRead Less
DocketPetition to Confirm Arbitration Award; Filed by: STEVE M ENGLEBRECHT (Petitioner); As to: BRIARWOOD BUILDERS INC. (Respondent)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: STEVE M ENGLEBRECHT (Petitioner); As to: BRIARWOOD BUILDERS INC. (Respondent)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Hearing on Petition; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: 19STCP01153 Hearing Date: December 16, 2019 Dept: 94
Englebrecht v. Briarwood, et al.
PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION
(CCP § 1285)
Petitioner Steve M. Englebrecht’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is GRANTED. JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,001.50.
On February 8, 2019, an arbitrator from the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) issued an Arbitration Award in favor of Petitioner Steve M. Englebrecht (“Petitioner”) and against Respondent Briarwood Builder, Inc. (“Respondent”) in the sum of $18,001.50. Petitioner then brought the instant Petition to Confirm the Arbitration Award (the “Petition”) on April 10, 2019. The matter initially came for hearing on September 25, 2019, then again on October 16, 2019. At the last hearing, the Court continued the matter one more time to allow Petitioner to demonstrate service of the arbitration award. Petitioner filed a supplemental declaration on October 30, 2019.
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.” (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.” (Id.)
CCP § 1285.4 states: “A petition under this chapter shall:
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.
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.”
CCP § 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.)
CCP § 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.”
The Amended Proof of Service filed on October 10 shows that the Notice of Petition and Petition were served on Respondent by substitution through its agent of service. This method of service has satisfied CCP § 1290.4. Additionally, the supplemental declaration filed on October 30, 2019 demonstrates that the arbitrator served the Award on both parties on February 11, 2019. (Supp. Omar Decl., ¶4 and Exh. 1.)
Therefore, Petitioner has now also satisfied Section 1283.6.
A party may seek a court judgment confirming an arbitration award by filing and serving a petition at least 10 days, but no more than four years after the award is served on Respondent and Petitioner. (CCP §§ 1288, 1288.4.)
In light of the February 11, 2019 service of the Arbitration Award, the Petition was timely filed on April 10, 2019 under CCP § 1288 and § 1288.4.
To the extent Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees and costs according to proof (Pet., ¶10, subd. (e), (f)), those are permitted on a petition to confirm arbitration award. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1293.2; MBNA America Bank, N.A. v. Gorman (2006) 147 Cal.App.4th.Supp. 1, 7.) Petitioner is to file a memorandum of costs pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1700 and a noticed motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1702.
IV. Conclusion & Order
In light of the foregoing, the Petition is GRANTED. JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,001.50.