This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/17/2020 at 01:24:20 (UTC).

YVONNE BROOKS VS GLENN ROSEN, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 01/22/2020 YVONNE BROOKS filed an Other - Arbitration lawsuit against GLENN ROSEN. 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:

    *******0299

  • Filing Date:

    01/22/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other - Arbitration

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Petitioner

BROOKS YVONNE

Respondents

ROSEN LAW FIRM

ROSEN GLENN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorney

MILLER RICHARD T

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)

10/15/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for [Minute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)]

10/15/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for [Minute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)]

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)

7/30/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Supplemental Declaration of Richard T. Miller in Support of Petition

7/31/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Supplemental Declaration of Richard T. Miller in Support of Petition

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

7/31/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

4/21/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Notice (name extension) - Notice Notice of Continuance of Hearing on Petition and Proof of Service

5/21/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice Notice of Continuance of Hearing on Petition and Proof of Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

2/4/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

1/22/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Summons - Summons on Petition

1/22/2020: Summons - Summons on Petition

Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award - Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

1/22/2020: Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award - Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

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

1/22/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

1/22/2020: Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

1 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/31/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Yvonne Brooks (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2020
  • DocketDeclaration Supplemental Declaration of Richard T. Miller in Support of Petition; Filed by: Yvonne Brooks (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2020
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award scheduled for 07/30/2020 at 09:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 10/15/2020 11:00 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2020
  • DocketNotice Notice of Continuance of Hearing on Petition and Proof of Service; Filed by: Yvonne Brooks (Petitioner); As to: Glenn Rosen (Respondent); Rosen Law Firm (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2020
  • DocketReset - Court Unavailable, Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award scheduled for 05/27/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 07/30/2020 09:00 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Yvonne Brooks (Petitioner); As to: Glenn Rosen (Respondent); Proof of Mailing Date: 01/29/2020; Service Cost: 64.50; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2020
  • DocketHearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award scheduled for 05/27/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2020
  • DocketPetition to Confirm Arbitration Award; Filed by: Yvonne Brooks (Petitioner); As to: Glenn Rosen (Respondent); Rosen Law Firm (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2020
  • DocketSummons on Petition; Issued and Filed by: Yvonne Brooks (Petitioner); As to: Glenn Rosen (Respondent); Rosen Law Firm (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2020
  • DocketNotice of Hearing on Petition; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STCP00299    Hearing Date: October 15, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE:   Thu., October 15, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME Brooks v. Rosen, et al. PET. FILED: 01-22-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STCP00299

NOTICE:   OK

PROCEEDINGS    PETITION TO CONFIRM ATTORNEY-CLIENT FEE ARBITRATION AWARD

MOVING PARTY:   Petitioner Yvonne Brooks

RESP. PARTY: None

PETITION TO CONFIRM ATTORNEY-CLIENT FEE ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1285 et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Yvonne Brooks’ Petition to Confirm Attorney-Client Fee Arbitration Award is GRANTED. Judgment to be entered against Respondents pursuant to the Arbitration Award in the amount of $12,862.50. Petitioner to file 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

OPPOSITION: None filed as of October 9, 2020 [   ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of October 9, 2020 [   ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

June 10, 2019, Arbitrator William M. Molfetta (the “Arbitrator”) before the State Bar of California rendered an award in favor of Petitioner Yvonne Brooks (“Petitioner”) and against Respondents Glenn Rosen (“Rosen”) and the Rosen Law Firm (“Law Firm”) (collectively, “Respondents”) in the amount of $12,862.50 plus interest at the legal rate from the 30th day after the date of service of the award (the “Arbitration Award”). (Pet., ¶ 6, Attach. 6(c).)

On January 22, 2020, Petitioner filed the instant Petition to Confirm Attorney-Client Fee Arbitration Award against Respondents.

At the initial July 30, 2020 hearing, the Court noted the Petition did not include a copy of the arbitration agreement between the parties or a proof of service demonstrating the Arbitrator himself served the parties with the Arbitration Award. (7/30/20 Minute Order.) The Court also noted that the proof of service for the Petition did not include a declaration of due diligence. (Id.)

On July 31, 2020, Petitioner filed a supplemental declaration.

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.”  (EHM Productions 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 previously submitted a copy of the Arbitration Award, which includes the name of the Arbitrator. (Pet., Attach. 6(c).) In her supplemental papers, Petitioner also attached a copy of the parties’ Engagement Agreement, which includes an arbitration provision. (7/31/20 Miller Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. 2.) Thus, Petitioner has satisfied the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure 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.

Petitioner filed a proof of service demonstrating that, on January 29, 2020, Respondents were served with the Petition at 149 S. Barrington Ave., #207, Los Angeles, CA, 90049, a private mailbox address. (2/4/20 Proof of Service.) Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20, subdivision (c), provides that “if the only address reasonably known for the person to be served is a private mailbox obtained through a commercial mail receiving agency, service of process may be effected on the first delivery attempt by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint with the commercial mail receiving agency…” Petitioner’s proof of service indicates that Respondents’ physical address is unknown. (2/4/20 Proof of Service.) Thus, the Court finds that Petitioner has satisfied the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4.

C. Service of the Arbitration Award (CCP § 1283.6) and Timing of Service of Petition (CCP § 1288)

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.) In her supplemental papers, Petitioner provides a copy of the neutral Arbitrator’s proof of service demonstrating the parties were served by the Arbitrator on June 11, 2019 via first-class mail. (7/31/20 Miller Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. 3.)

Thus, Petitioner has satisfied section 1283.6.

Furthermore, 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 Petition was filed at least 10 days but no more than 4 years after the Arbitration Award was initially served on June 19, 2019. Thus, Petitioner has satisfied sections 1288 and 1288.4.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Yvonne Brooks’ Petition to Confirm Attorney-Client Fee Arbitration Award is GRANTED. Judgment to be entered against Respondents pursuant to the Arbitration Award in the amount of $12,862.50. Petitioner to file proposed judgment within ten (10) days of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 20STCP00299    Hearing Date: July 30, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Thu., July 30, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Brooks v. Rosen, et al. PET. FILED: 01-22-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STCP00299

NOTICE: NO

PROCEEDINGS: PETITION TO CONFIRM ATTORNEY-CLIENT FEE ARBITRATION AWARD

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Yvonne Brooks

RESP. PARTY: None

PETITION TO CONFIRM ATTORNEY-CLIENT FEE ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1285 et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Yvonne Brooks’ Petition to Confirm Attorney-Client Fee Arbitration Award is CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 15, 2020 at 11:00 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 addressing the deficiencies identified 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

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

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of July 28, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of July 28, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

June 10, 2019, Arbitrator William M. Molfetta (the “Arbitrator”) before the State Bar of California rendered an award in favor of Petitioner Yvonne Brooks (“Petitioner”) and against Respondents Glenn Rosen (“Rosen”) and the Rosen Law Firm (“Law Firm”) (collectively, “Respondents”) in the amount of $12,862.50 plus interest of the legal rate from the 30th day after the date of service of the award (the “Arbitration Award”). (Pet., ¶ 6, Attach. 6(c).)

On January 22, 2020, Petitioner filed the instant Petition to Confirm Attorney-Client Fee Arbitration Award against Respondents. 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.” (EHM Productions 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 submitted a copy of the Arbitration Award, which includes the name of the Arbitrator. (Pet., Attach. 6(c).) However, she did not include a copy of an arbitration agreement between Petitioner and Respondents. Thus, Petitioner has not satisfied Code of Civil Procedure section 1285.4.

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

As noted above, Petitioner did not provide a copy of the parties’ agreement, and thus, the Court cannot determine what the proper method of service for this Petition is. Notably, Petitioner filed a proof of service demonstrating that on January 29, 2020, Respondent Rosen was served with the Petition via substitute service. (2/4/20 Proof of Service.) However, upon review, the Court is concerned that service fails to comply with statutory requirements. Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20, subdivision (b) permits substitute service upon an individual following reasonable diligence to effectuate personal service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b); Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University v. Ham (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 330, 337 (citing American Exp. Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 389 (“Substituted service is permissible, however, ‘only after a good faith effort at personal service has first been made: the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the summons and complaint ‘cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered’ to the individual defendant.’”)).) Petitioner’s proof of service includes a declaration of mailing, but not a declaration of diligence. (See 2/4/20 Proof of Service.)

In addition, the copy of the Arbitration Award submitted does not include a proof of service demonstrating the Arbitrator himself served a copy of the Award on both parties. Thus, Petitioner has not satisfied Sections 1283.6 and 1290.4.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Yvonne Brooks’ Petition to Confirm Attorney-Client Fee Arbitration Award is CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 15, 2020 at 1:00 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 addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.