On 08/08/2016 STEVEN D COLQUHOUN filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
****9862
08/08/2016
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
COLQUHOUN STEVEN D.
DOES 1-10
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
FABER MICHAEL J.
CARLSON KEITH W.
7/26/2018: Minute Order
7/26/2018: JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE REPORT RE ARBITRATION; STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE RE ARBITRATION; [PROPOSED] ORDER
2/1/2019: Order
8/8/2016: SUMMONS
8/8/2016: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION
8/17/2016: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
9/2/2016: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION 2. PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
9/6/2016: NOTICE OF ERRATA RE EXHIBIT TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
11/18/2016: NOTICE OF HEARING AND PETITION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ARBITRATION AND STAYING THIS ACTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
11/18/2016: DECLARATION OF JEHAN N. JAYAKUMAR IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ARBITRATION AND STAYING THIS ACTION
11/18/2016: DECLARATION OF JUDY GARNER IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ARBITRATION AND STAYING THIS ACTION
11/22/2016: Unknown
11/28/2016: OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
12/5/2016: JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER
12/6/2016: NOTICE OF CONTINUED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
12/7/2016: Minute Order
12/21/2016: Minute Order
12/5/2017: JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE REPORT RE ARBITRATION; ETC
Notice (of Order re Joint Stipulation to Continue Status Conference re Arbitration); Filed by University of Southern California (Defendant)
at 08:30 AM in Department 34; Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation
Order (to Continue Status Conference RE Arbitration); Filed by University of Southern California (Defendant)
Stipulation and Order (to Continue Status Conference RE Arbitration); Filed by University of Southern California (Defendant)
at 08:30 AM in Department 34; Status Conference (Status Conference; Matter continued) -
Minute order entered: 2018-07-26 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk
Stipulation and Order; Filed by University of Southern California (Defendant)
Minute Order
JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE REPORT RE ARBITRATION; STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE RE ARBITRATION; [PROPOSED] ORDER
at 08:30 AM in Department 34; Status Conference (Status Conference; Matter continued) -
NOTICE OF ERRATA RE EXHIBIT TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Notice; Filed by Steven D. Colquhoun (Plaintiff)
First Amended Complaint; Filed by Steven D. Colquhoun (Plaintiff)
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION 2. PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION
SUMMONS
Complaint; Filed by Steven D. Colquhoun (Plaintiff)
Stipulation and Order; Filed by University of Southern California (Defendant)
Case Number: BC629862 Hearing Date: March 16, 2020 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award
Moving Party: Petitioner/Defendant University of Southern California
Resp. Party: None
The petition to confirm arbitration award is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND:
On August 6, 2018, Plaintiff Steven D. Colquhoun commenced this action against Defendant University of Southern California for fraud and misrepresentation.
On September 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint against Defendant for (1) fraud and misrepresentation; and (2) promissory estoppel. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s agents made false promises and misrepresentations when offering Plaintiff an employment position with Defendant.
On December 21, 2016, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for an order compelling arbitration and staying this action.
On February 13, 2020, Defendant filed the instant unopposed petition to confirm arbitration award.
ANALYSIS:
A. Legal Standard
Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct, or vacate the award. (Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §1285.) When a petition to confirm an award is filed, the superior court has four courses of conduct available: to confirm the award, to correct and confirm it, to vacate it, or to dismiss the petition. (Cooper v. Lavely & Singer Professional Corp. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1, 10.) Arbitration awards are subject to very limited judicial review, and the merits of the controversy are not reviewable on a petition to confirm, vacate, or correct. (Cinel v. Christopher (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 759, fn 5.) Thus, an arbitration award may only be vacated if (1) the award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means, (2) there was corruption in any of the arbitrators, (3) the rights of the party were substantially prejudiced by misconduct of a neutral arbitrator, (4) the arbitrators exceeded their powers, (5) the rights of the party were substantially prejudiced by the refusal of the arbitrators to postpone the hearing, or (6) the arbitrator making the award failed to disclose a ground for disqualification or failed to disqualify himself or herself as required upon receipt of timely demand. (Code of Civ. Proc., §1286.2.)
The procedural requirements of a petition to confirm an arbitration award require the petition to:
“(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.” (Code of Civ. Proc., §1285.4.)
B. Discussion
Defendant seeks to confirm the arbitration award that was rendered on December 10, 2019 by Hon. Patricia Collins (Ret.), an arbitrator with ADR Services, Inc. (Petition, ¶¶ 11-13.) Defendant has attached a copy of the award and written opinion of the arbitrator as Exhibit C. The arbitration proceeding determined whether Defendant defrauded Plaintiff by inducing him to leave Cedars and to join USC based on a false promise by the chair of the Department of Surgery at USC. (Petition, Ex. C, p. 2:4-3:3.) The arbitration award holds that “Plaintiff shall take nothing by his claim” and “judgment should be rendered in favor of defendant USC.” (Petition, Ex. C, p. 25:4-5; Petition, ¶ 13.) Defendant asserts that “the terms of the award require neither party to pay the other anything.” (Petition, ¶ 13.)
Plaintiff has not opposed this petition and thus has not given the Court any reason not to grant this petition.
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s petition to confirm the arbitration award.