Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/11/2019 at 01:01:34 (UTC).

SOCORRO GUTIERREZ ET AL VS EDWARD KIM ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/30/2016 SOCORRO GUTIERREZ filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against EDWARD KIM. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DANIEL S. MURPHY and YOLANDA OROZCO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5547

  • Filing Date:

    03/30/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

DANIEL S. MURPHY

YOLANDA OROZCO

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Cross Defendants

GUTIERREZ CYNTHIA Y

OROZCO MELANIE S

GUTIERREZ SOCORRO

GUTIERREZ KARINA

GUTIERREZ DANIEL

GUTIERREZ FREDDY

VELASQUEZ JORGE LUIS

DE LA CRUZ TOMAS

FRAUSTO ARACELY

ISLAS MONESERRAT

RAMOS SANDRA MARITZA

MARTINEZ OSMANY SALVADOR VALENCIA

Defendants, Respondents, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

KANG SEUNG

CHO GINNIE

KIM EDWARD

GUTIERREZ SOCORRO

GUTIERREZ DANIEL

GUTIERREZ FREDDY

BEHREND DAVID

PARTIDA ISRRAEL

ANDRES ROBERTO

KIM RAY

FUENTES XOCHITL

107 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

STARK FRIEDMAN & CHAPMAN LLP

STARK PATRICK J.

Defendant Attorneys

PLANTE BRIAN C.

MORTENSEN JAMES D.

BAKER JOHN H.

Cross Plaintiff Attorney

BULLOCK DONNA

Cross Defendant Attorneys

LIM S. YOUNG

LIN PAUL P.

 

Court Documents

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER ADVANCING THE FEBRUARY 8, 2018 HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES, TO CONTINUE TRIAL, TO EXTEND DISCOVERY AND OTHER TRIAL RELATED DATES

2/2/2018: EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER ADVANCING THE FEBRUARY 8, 2018 HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES, TO CONTINUE TRIAL, TO EXTEND DISCOVERY AND OTHER TRIAL RELATED DATES

Minute Order

2/8/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF RULING

6/6/2018: NOTICE OF RULING

DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IN VARGAS, ET AL. V. KIM, ET AL. (BC667835)

7/13/2018: DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IN VARGAS, ET AL. V. KIM, ET AL. (BC667835)

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

9/12/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt

12/20/2018: Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

6/10/2016: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

6/10/2016: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

6/10/2016: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

10/17/2016: CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

12/23/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

DECLARATION RE CROSS-COMPLAINANTS' NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT WITH CROSS-DEFENDANT VPMI

4/24/2017: DECLARATION RE CROSS-COMPLAINANTS' NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT WITH CROSS-DEFENDANT VPMI

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

5/3/2017: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

5/11/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

CROSS-DEFENDANTS JEANNE F. SALAMON AND ADVANCED PESION INC.'S REPLY TO THE OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-COMPLAINTS YOUNG HEE KIM AND HELEN LEE TO MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

12/4/2017: CROSS-DEFENDANTS JEANNE F. SALAMON AND ADVANCED PESION INC.'S REPLY TO THE OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-COMPLAINTS YOUNG HEE KIM AND HELEN LEE TO MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

DECLARATION OF PATRICK STARK; ETC.

12/7/2017: DECLARATION OF PATRICK STARK; ETC.

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER: 1. CONTINUING TRIAL AND FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; 2. TO EXTEND ALL STATUTORY TRIAL RELATED DATES AND DISCOVERY CUT-OFF AND EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATION PER CODE; ETC.

12/11/2017: EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER: 1. CONTINUING TRIAL AND FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; 2. TO EXTEND ALL STATUTORY TRIAL RELATED DATES AND DISCOVERY CUT-OFF AND EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATION PER CODE; ETC.

DEFENDANTS JEANNE F. SALAMON AND ADVANCED PENSION PROGRAMS, INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

12/12/2017: DEFENDANTS JEANNE F. SALAMON AND ADVANCED PENSION PROGRAMS, INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

306 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/22/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 31, Yolanda Orozco, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2019
  • Answer; Filed by Helen Lee (Cross-Complainant); Young Hee Kim (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2019
  • Cross-Complaint; Filed by Young Hee Kim (Cross-Complainant); Helen Lee (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2019
  • Answer; Filed by Helen Lee (Cross-Complainant); Young Hee Kim (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 31, Yolanda Orozco, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 31, Yolanda Orozco, Presiding; Ruling on Submitted Matter

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter) of 04/09/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Ruling on Submitted Matter)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 31, Yolanda Orozco, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
691 More Docket Entries
  • 06/08/2016
  • CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2016
  • Minute order entered: 2016-06-08 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2016
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2016
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2016
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2016
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2016
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR: 1) BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Cynthia Y Gutierrez (Plaintiff); Melanie S Orozco (Plaintiff); Karen L. Orozco (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC615547    Hearing Date: February 25, 2021    Dept: 31


Case Number: BC658702    Hearing Date: February 25, 2021    Dept: 31

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY ARBITRATOR IS DENIED.

Background

On April 20, 2017, Plaintiff Ocean Towers Housing Corporation filed the instant action against Defendants Enenstein, Ribakoff, Lavina & Pham LLP; David Ribakoff; Ryan Wegner; Darren Enenstein; and Does 1 through 100. On August 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The FAC asserts causes of action for:

  1. Negligence;

  2. Breach of Fiduciary Duty;

  3. Breach of Contract; and

  4. Declaratory Relief.

On September 27, 2017, pursuant to a Stipulation to Submit Matter to Binding Arbitration and to Stay Action, the Court ordered the matter to arbitration and stayed the case.

Plaintiff now moves to disqualify the arbitrator pursuant to the Arbitrator Order referring the issue to the Court.

Legal Standard

A proposed arbitrator must disclose all matters that could cause a person aware of the facts to reasonably entertain a doubt that the proposed neutral arbitrator would be able to be impartial. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.9, subd. (a).) This includes the existence of any ground listed in Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1. (Ibid.) Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1, subdivision (a)(6)(A)(iii) requires disqualification where “[a] person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.” A party who agrees to arbitration before a private body does not waive their statutory rights to disqualify an arbitrator, and the private body is required to resolve objections to proposed arbitrators in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.9 and 1281.91. (Azteca Construction, Inc. v. ADR Consulting, Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1168 (Azteca).)

If a party timely objects after receiving a proposed neutral arbitrator’s disclosures, “the arbitrator shall be disqualified on the basis of the disclosure statement.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.91, subd. (b)(1).) “If any ground specified in Section 170.1 exists, a neutral arbitrator shall disqualify himself or herself upon the demand of any party made before the conclusion of the arbitration proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.91, subd. (d).)

Discussion

Plaintiff moves to disqualify the arbitrator pursuant to the Arbitrator Order referring the issue to the Court. 

On November 4, 2020, the Arbitrator, the Honorable Jacqueline A Connor, issued an Order re: Request for Disqualification of Arbitrator. (Wittenberg Decl., Exh. 1.) The Order states that the parties’ arbitration is governed by ADR Service, Inc. Arbitration Rules. (Wittenberg Decl., Exh. 1.) Rule 12 of the ADR Services, Inc. Arbitration rules provides, in relevant part: “Upon objection of a party to the continued service of a neutral arbitrator, ADR Services shall refer the matter to the Court for determination, which shall be conclusive.” (Wittenberg Decl., Exh. 1.) The Order further states: “I believe, therefore, that in view of Respondent’s/ Cross-Claimant’s objection to my continued service as the Arbitrator in this matter, the Court would be the proper venue to determine whether the arbitration should proceed before the undersigned arbitrator, or whether a new arbitrator should be selected. [¶] Either Claimant or Respondent in this action, shall Petition the Court for an Order determining whether the arbitration should proceed before the undersigned arbitrator, or whether a new arbitrator should be selected.” (Wittenberg Decl., Exh. 1.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not identified a legal basis for bringing the instant motion. Under the great weight of modern authorities, trial courts lack authority to rule, intervene in, or dismiss, pending contractual arbitrations. (MKJA, Inc. v. 123 Fit Franchising, LLC (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 643, 662 ["After a petition to compel arbitration has been granted and a lawsuit stayed, 'the arbitrator takes over. It is the job of the arbitrator, not the court, to resolve all questions needed to determine the controversy.'”].) “[A]n arbitration has a life of its own outside the judicial system.” (Byerly v. Sale (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1312, 1316.) “The trial court may not step into a case submitted to arbitration and tell the arbitrator what to do and when to do it: it may not resolve procedural questions, order discovery, determine the status of claims before the arbitrator or set the case for trial because of a party's alleged dilatory conduct. It is for the arbitrator, and not the court, to resolve such questions.” (Titan/Value Equities Group, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 482, 489.)   

The court has authority to vacate an arbitration award on grounds that the “arbitrator making the award either: (A) failed to disclose within the time required for disclosure a ground for disqualification of which the arbitrator was then aware; 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...”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.2(a)(6); Hayden v. Robertson Stephens, Inc. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 360, 366.) Thus, the proper means of enforcing Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.91 is after the arbitration has been completed, through a motion to vacate arbitration award brought pursuant to CCP § 1286.2. (See Azteca Construction, Inc. v. ADR Consulting, Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1169.)

Here, arbitration is still pending and no final award has been entered. Plaintiff has failed to cite to any authority that expressly provides that the Court has authority to rule or intervene in the pending contractual arbitration based on the Arbitrator’s Order referring the matter to the Court.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify the arbitrator is DENIED.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify the arbitrator is DENIED.

Plaintiff is to give notice.

The parties are strongly encouraged to attend all scheduled hearings virtually or by audio. Effective July 20, 2020, all matters will be scheduled virtually and/or with audio through the Court’s LACourtConnect technology. The parties are strongly encouraged to use LACourtConnect for all their matters. All social distancing protocols will be observed at the Courthouse and in the courtrooms.