This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/10/2019 at 01:29:46 (UTC).

JT LEGAL GROUP VS. IAN ADAM GLEASON, ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/03/2018 a Contract - Other Contract case was filed by JT LEGAL GROUP against IAN ADAM GLEASON in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8123

  • Filing Date:

    04/03/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant

JT LEGAL GROUP A PROFESSIONAL LAW

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.

GLEASON IAN ADAM

 

Court Documents

Summons

4/3/2018: Summons

Notice of Case Management Conference

4/3/2018: Notice of Case Management Conference

Civil Case Cover Sheet

4/3/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

4/9/2018: Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

Legacy Document

5/8/2018: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

5/18/2018: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

5/18/2018: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

6/8/2018: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

6/11/2018: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

6/15/2018: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

6/15/2018: Legacy Document

Minute Order

6/22/2018: Minute Order

Legacy Document

6/22/2018: Legacy Document

Notice of Ruling

6/25/2018: Notice of Ruling

Request For Copies

6/29/2018: Request For Copies

Case Management Statement

8/20/2018: Case Management Statement

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

11/19/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

3/19/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

11 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/19/2019
  • at 08:32 AM in Department B; Post-Arbitration Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Post-Arbitration Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2019
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by JT Legal Group, a professional law (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2018
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2018
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by JT Legal Group, a professional law (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2018
  • Case Management Statement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2018
  • Request For Copies

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2018
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2018
  • at 08:33 AM in Department B; Unknown Event Type - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
8 More Docket Entries
  • 05/18/2018
  • Motion to Compel; Filed by Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2018
  • Declaration; Filed by Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2018
  • Notice; Filed by JT Legal Group, a professional law (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2018
  • Notice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2018
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by JT Legal Group, a professional law (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2018
  • Summons; Filed by JT Legal Group, a professional law (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2018
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by JT Legal Group, a professional law (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2018
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by JT Legal Group, a professional law (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2018
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC068123    Hearing Date: February 21, 2020    Dept: NCB

JT LEGAL GROUP,

Plaintiff,

v.

IAN ADAM GLEASON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: EC068123

Hearing Date: February 21, 2020 (cont. from January 17, 2020)

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

petition to confirm arbitration order

BACKGROUND

A. Allegations of the Complaint

In this action, Plaintiff JT Legal Group (“Plaintiff”) alleges that it was performing legal services pursuant to an attorney-client retainer agreement between itself and Defendant Ian Adam Gleason (“Gleason”). In the underlying case, Gleason’s home was burned down because his dog knocked over his barbecue grill. The home was insured by a policy bought by Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”), which it purchased with American Surety Insurance Company (“Assurant”) in order to protect itself, since Gleason refused to purchase separate insurance. Following the fire, Assurant and Wells Fargo refused to deal with Gleason. Plaintiff ultimately negotiated a settlement of the underlying matter for full policy limits, but Wells Fargo refused to endorse the check. Plaintiff alleges, unbeknownst to it, Wells Fargo had contacted Gleason and informed him that Plaintiff’s involvement was not necessary, and that Wells Fargo would deduct its fees and disburse the rest of the funds to Plaintiff. The funds were disbursed to Wells Fargo and Gleason, but not to Plaintiff.

The complaint, filed April 3, 2018, alleges causes of action for: (1) fraud – intentional misrepresentation; (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3) fraud – false promise; (4) breach of contract; (5) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (6) breach of oral contract; (7) unjust enrichment; (8) conversion; (9) unfair business practices; (10) intentional interference with economic relation; (11) negligent interference with economic relations; and (12) intentional interference with existing contract.

B. Relevant Background and Motion on Calendar

On May 18, 2018, Wells Fargo filed a motion for an order compelling arbitration and staying the civil court proceedings. Plaintiff opposed. On June 22, 2018, the Court granted the motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceedings.

On December 20, 2019, Wells Fargo filed this Petition to Confirm Arbitration Order.

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief to the petition.

On January 10, 2020, Wells Fargo filed a Reply to Plaintiff’s Non-Opposition to Petition, stating that Plaintiff failed to respond to or oppose the petition.

On January 17, 2020, this matter came for hearing. The Court continued the petition hearing to February 21, 2020 and ordered Wells Fargo’s counsel to file a supplemental declaration with a copy of the proof of service by the arbitrator.

On January 16, 2020, Wells Fargo’s counsel, Mark G. Rackers filed a supplemental declaration (in advance of the January 17, 2020 hearing date in response to the Court’s tentative order uploaded on the Court’s website prior to the January 17, 2020 hearing).

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP §1285 permits any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made to petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award. CCP §1285.4 requires 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 names of the arbitrators; and

(c) Set forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any.

(CCP §1285.4.)

CCP §1286 states that if the petition is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made, whether rendered in this state or another state. CCP §1287.4 states that once confirmed, an award is enforceable as a judgment.

The court shall award costs upon any judicial proceeding under this title as provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1021) of Title 14 of Part 2 of this code.” (CCP §1293.2.)

DISCUSSION

A. Service of the Arbitration Award and Timeliness of the Petition

CCP §1288 states: “A petition to  an award shall be served and filed not later than four years after the date of service of a signed copy of the award on the petitioner. A petition to  an award or to correct an award shall be served and filed not later than 100 days after the date of the service of a signed copy of the award on the petitioner.”

“No petition may be served and filed under this chapter until at least 10 days after service of the signed copy of the award upon the petitioner.” (CCP, § 1288.4.) Under CCP §1290.2, no less than 10 days’ notice must be provided to the responding party before any hearing on the confirmation petition.

Wells Fargo’s counsel, Mark G. Rackers, states in his declaration that the Arbitration Order was served on all parties via email on December 10, 2019. (Rackers Decl., ¶9.) In his supplemental declaration, Mr. Rackers provides a document showing that Lupe Gonzalez Baca of AAA emailed the parties a copy of the Arbitration Order on December 10, 2019. (Suppl. Rackers Decl., Ex. A.)

As service of the Arbitration Order was made on December 10, 2019, the Court finds that the petition timely filed and served. Wells Fargo filed this petition on December 20, 2019. The petition was served by electronic service and U.S.P.S. mail on December 20, 2019 on counsel for Plaintiff JT Legal Group and Defendant Ian Adam Gleason. Here, more than 10 days’ notice of this hearing was provided to Plaintiff and Gleason.

B. Merits of Petition

The petition includes a copy of the agreement to arbitrate (i.e., the underlying written agreement between the parties), which is attached as Exhibit A to the declaration of Mark G. Rackers.

Wells Fargo’s counsel, Mark G. Rackers, states that Wells Fargo fully participated in the arbitration by corresponding with Plaintiff by issuing discovery, paying all invoices, and preparing its defense, while Plaintiff failed to propound discovery, discuss settlement, produce discovery, or pay arbitrator fees. (Rackers Decl., ¶¶4-6.) On October 11, 2019, Wells Fargo filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, which the arbitrator granted. (Id., ¶¶7, 9, Exs. B, D.)

Exhibit D includes the Findings and Order for Termination of Arbitration, which was issued on December 6, 2019 by Arbitrator Paul Bent (hereinafter, “Arbitration Order”). Arbitrator Bent recounts the procedural history of the arbitration that: (a) adequate notice was tendered to and received by all parties regarding the arbitration and requirement to pay fees; (b) upon finding that fees had not been timely met, the Arbitrator suspended the proceedings from October 27, 2019 to December 6, 2019; (c)-(d) AAA had not received any further payments as of December 2, 2019 or by December 6, 2019; (e) fair and adequate notice had been provided to all parties regarding the rules; and (f) the Arbitrator found that Plaintiff’s inaction and failure to comply with rules was sufficient grounds to terminate the arbitration. (Arbitration Order at p.2.) Thus, the Arbitrator made the following orders: (a) Plaintiff’s claims as to Defendants in the arbitration were dismissed with prejudice; (b) the arbitration was terminated for all purposes and intents; (c) AAA may take actions to carry out orders of dismissal and termination and to wind up the arbitration; and (d) the parties are ordered to pay in equal shares to AAA the total of any outstanding administrative fees and all arbitrator compensation. (Id. at p.3.)

Wells Fargo also seeks $4,131.40 in incurred costs for bringing this petition to enforce the Arbitration Order (i.e., $3,696.40 in attorney’s fees and $435.00 filing fees). (Rackers Decl., ¶10.) Mr. Rackers states that he spent 4.6 hours on this petition at $412/hour ($1,895.20); Trevor S. Mann-O’Halloran spent 4.4 hours on this matter at $288/hour ($1,267.20); and Edward D. Vogel spent 1.2 hours on this matter at $445/hour ($534). (Id., ¶¶11-13.) According to the Reservation sheet attached to the motion papers, the filing fee for this “motion for Order” was $61.65 and not $435.00. Thus, the Court will award costs in the reduced amount of $3,758.05 (= $3,696.40 + $61.65).

There is substantive merit to granting this petition according to the terms of Arbitration Award. In addition, the petition is not opposed and Plaintiff has not filed a petition to vacate the award within 100 days of service of the signed award (i.e., 100 days from February 22, 2019 is June 2, 2019). (See CCP §1288.) Thus, the Court grants this petition to confirm the Arbitration Award and awards costs in the amount of $3,758.05 to be paid by Plaintiff.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Wells Fargo’s petition to confirm the Arbitration Order is granted. The Court awards costs to Wells Fargo in the amount of $3,758.05.

Wells Fargo shall provide notice of this order.

Case Number: EC068123    Hearing Date: January 17, 2020    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

JT LEGAL GROUP,

Plaintiff,

v.

IAN ADAM GLEASON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: EC068123

Hearing Date: January 17, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

petition to confirm arbitration order

BACKGROUND

A. Allegations of the Complaint

In this action, Plaintiff JT Legal Group (“Plaintiff”) alleges that it was performing legal services pursuant to an attorney-client retainer agreement between itself and Defendant Ian Adam Gleason (“Gleason”). In the underlying case, Gleason’s home was burned down because his dog knocked over his barbecue grill. The home was insured by a policy bought by Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”), which it purchased with American Surety Insurance Company (“Assurant”) to protect itself. Gleason apparently refused to purchase separate insurance. Following the fire, Assurant and Wells Fargo refused to deal with Gleason. Plaintiff ultimately negotiated a settlement of the underlying matter for full policy limits, but Wells Fargo refused to endorse the check. Plaintiff alleges that Wells Fargo contacted Gleason and informed him that Plaintiff’s involvement was not necessary, and that Wells Fargo would deduct its fees and disburse the rest of the funds to Plaintiff. The funds were disbursed to Wells Fargo and Gleason, but not to Plaintiff.

The complaint, filed April 3, 2018, alleges causes of action for: (1) fraud – intentional misrepresentation; (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3) fraud – false promise; (4) breach of contract; (5) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (6) breach of oral contract; (7) unjust enrichment; (8) conversion; (9) unfair business practices; (10) intentional interference with economic relation; (11) negligent interference with economic relations; and (12) intentional interference with existing contract.

B. Relevant Background and Motion on Calendar

On May 18, 2018, Wells Fargo filed a motion for an order compelling arbitration and staying the civil court proceedings. Plaintiff opposed. On June 22, 2018, the Court granted the motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceedings.

On December 20, 2019, Wells Fargo filed this Petition to Confirm Arbitration Order.

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief to the petition.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 1285 permits any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made to petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award. CCP §1285.4 requires 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 names of the arbitrators; and

(c) Set forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any.

(CCP §1285.4.)

CCP §1286 states that if the petition is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made, whether rendered in this state or another state. CCP §1287.4 states that once confirmed, an award is enforceable as a judgment.

The court shall award costs upon any judicial proceeding under this title as provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1021) of Title 14 of Part 2 of this code.” (CCP §1293.2.)

DISCUSSION

A. Service of the Arbitration Award and Timeliness of the Petition

CCP §1288 states: “A petition to  an award shall be served and filed not later than four years after the date of service of a signed copy of the award on the petitioner. A petition to  an award or to correct an award shall be served and filed not later than 100 days after the date of the service of a signed copy of the award on the petitioner.”

“No petition may be served and filed under this chapter until at least 10 days after service of the signed copy of the award upon the petitioner.” (CCP, § 1288.4.) Under CCP §1290.2, no less than 10 days’ notice must be provided to the responding party before any hearing on the confirmation petition.

Wells Fargo’s counsel, Mark G. Rackers, states in his declaration that the Arbitration Order was served on all parties via email on December 10, 2019. (Rackers Decl., ¶9.) However, no proof of service is attached to show when and by what means service of the Arbitration Order was made. (See CCP §§1288, 1288.4.) For thoroughness of the record, Wells Fargo should provide the Court with a copy of the proof of service (and/or the email) showing that service of the Arbitration Order was made on December 10, 2019.

Upon proof that service of the Arbitration Order was made on December 10, 2019, the Court would be inclined to find the petition timely filed and served. Wells Fargo filed this petition on December 20, 2019. The petition was served by electronic service and U.S.P.S. mail on December 20, 2019 on counsel for Plaintiff JT Legal Group and Defendant Ian Adam Gleason. Here, more than 10 days’ notice of this hearing was provided to Plaintiff and Gleason.

B. Merits of Petition

The petition includes a copy of the agreement to arbitrate (i.e., the underlying written agreement between the parties), which is attached as Exhibit A to the declaration of Mark G. Rackers.

Wells Fargo’s counsel, Mark G. Rackers, states that Wells Fargo fully participated in the arbitration by corresponding with Plaintiff by issuing discovery, paying all invoices, and preparing its defense, while Plaintiff failed to propound discovery, discuss settlement, produce discovery, or pay arbitrator fees. (Rackers Decl., ¶¶4-6.) On October 11, 2019, Wells Fargo field a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, which the arbitrator granted. (Id., ¶¶7, 9, Exs. B, D.)

Exhibit D includes the Findings and Order for Termination of Arbitration, which was issued on December 6, 2019 by Arbitrator Paul Bent (hereinafter, “Arbitration Order”). Arbitrator Bent recounts the procedural history of the arbitration that: (a) adequate notice was tendered to and received by all parties regarding the arbitration and requirement to pay fees; (b) upon finding that fees had not been timely met, the Arbitrator suspended the proceedings from October 27, 2019 to December 6, 2019; (c)-(d) AAA had not received any further payments as of December 2, 2019 or by December 6, 2019; (e) fair and adequate notice had been provided to all parties regarding the rules; and (f) the Arbitrator found that Plaintiff’s inaction and failure to comply with rules was sufficient grounds to terminate the arbitration. (Arbitration Order at p.2.) Thus, the Arbitrator made the following orders: (a) Plaintiff’s claims as to Defendants in the arbitration were dismissed with prejudice; (b) the arbitration was terminated for all purposes and intents; (c) AAA may take actions to carry out orders of dismissal and termination and to wind up the arbitration; and (d) the parties are ordered to pay in equal shares to AAA the total of any outstanding administrative fees and all arbitrator compensation. (Id. at p.3.)

Wells Fargo also seeks $4,131.40 in incurred costs for bringing this petition to enforce the Arbitration Order (i.e., $3,696.40 in attorney’s fees and $435.00 filing fees). (Rackers Decl., ¶10.) Mr. Rackers states that he spent 4.6 hours on this petition at $412/hour ($1,895.20); Trevor S. Mann-O’Halloran spent 4.4 hours on this matter at $288/hour ($1,267.20); and Edward D. Vogel spent 1.2 hours on this matter at $445/hour ($534). (Id., ¶¶11-13.) According to the Reservation sheet attached to the motion papers, the filing fee for this “motion for Order” was $61.65 and not $435.00. Thus, the Court would be inclined to award costs in the reduced amount of $3,758.05 (= $3,696.40 + $61.65).

The Court would be inclined to grant this petition upon Wells Fargo’s filing of a proof of service showing that the Arbitration Award had been served on December 10, 2019.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Wells Fargo’s petition to confirm the Arbitration Order is continued to February 21, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. Prior to the continued hearing date, Wells Fargo is ordered to file a supplemental declaration of its counsel providing the Court with a copy of the proof of service by the Arbitrator. Upon receiving the proof of service of the Arbitration Order, the Court would be inclined to grant the unopposed petition.

Wells Fargo shall provide notice of this order.