On 07/06/2017 SKY PROPERTIES INC filed an Other - Declaratory Judgment lawsuit against VALOR LLP. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is DAVID SOTELO. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Disposed - Dismissed
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
SKY PROPERTIES INC
GENTINO ROBERT ESQ.
MARCELO E. DI MAURO
4/10/2018: NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL
4/12/2018: Minute Order
4/12/2018: NOTICE OF RULING RE: STATUS CONFERENCE (RE: ARBITRATION)
5/16/2018: Minute Order
10/12/2017: Minute Order
7/6/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
7/6/2017: REJECTION OF AWARD AND REQUEST FOR TRIAL AFTER ATTORNEY-CLIENT FEE ARBITRATION
8/11/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
8/11/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
9/5/2017: DECLARATION OF DEMURRING PARTY IN SUPPORT OF AUTOMATIC EXTENSION
9/15/2017: NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO STAY ACTION PENDING COMPLETION OF RELATED ARBITRATION; ETC.
9/27/2017: Minute Order
9/27/2017: STIPULATION RE: BINDING ARBITRATION; ORDER
at 08:30 am in Department 40, David Sotelo, Presiding; Motion (TO DISMISS(MTN RESERVED BUT NOT FILED YET)CANCELED PER M/P ON 8/8/18 ON CRS) - Off CalendarRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 am in Department 40, David Sotelo, Presiding; Motion (TO DISMISScont per mp in crs to 8/9/18) - Advanced to a Previous DateRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 am in Department 40, David Sotelo, Presiding; OSC RE Dismissal (FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE) - OSC DischargedRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 am in Department 40, David Sotelo, Presiding; Status Conference (RE: ARBITRATION) - CompletedRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Ruling (RE: STATUS CONFERENCE RE: ARBITRATION ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant/RespondentRead MoreRead Less
Declaration (OF MARCELO DI MAURO RE: OSC ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant/RespondentRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Association of Attorneys; Filed by Attorney for Defendant/RespondentRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Entry of Judgment; Filed by Attorney for Defendant/RespondentRead MoreRead Less
at 08:45 am in Department 40, David Sotelo, Presiding; Motion to Compel (ARBITRATION/STAY ACTIONANDCASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE) - GrantedRead MoreRead Less
Order; Filed by DefendantRead MoreRead Less
Request to Enter Default (REJECT FOR VALOR LLP, A LLP NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON SERVED ARE NOT IDENTIFIED, AUTHORIZED AGENT ON AKCNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT. NEED NEW PROOF OF SERVICE. AND NEW REQUEST DEFAULT); Filed by Attorney for Pltf/PetnrRead MoreRead Less
Motion to Compel (ARBITRATION OR TO STAY ACTION PENDING COMPLETION OF RELATED ARBITRATION; ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant/RespondentRead MoreRead Less
Receipt (FIRST PAPER FEES ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant/RespondentRead MoreRead Less
Default Entered (RAMIN KERMANI-NEJAD ); Filed by Attorney for Pltf/PetnrRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 am in Department 40, David Sotelo, Presiding; Order to Show Cause (RE: PROOF OF SERVICE;) - OSC DischargedRead MoreRead Less
Declaration (OF DEMURRING PARTY IN SUPPORT OF AUTOMATIC EXTENSION ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant/RespondentRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Service (SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
Notice-Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
ComplaintRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC667584 Hearing Date: September 03, 2020 Dept: 40
MOVING PARTY: Defendants Valor LLP and
OPPOSITION: Plaintiff Sky Properties, Inc.
This matter arises from a fee dispute between Defendants Valor LLP and Ramin Kermani-Nejad (collectively, “Defendants”) and Plaintiff Sky Properties, Inc. (“Plaintiff”). Defendants represented Plaintiff in an unlawful detainer action and there was a dispute about the fees owed for Defendants’ services. On May 12, 2017, a Los Angeles County Bar Association (“LACBA”) arbitrator awarded Defendants $27,994.73 in fees and costs, plus annual interest of ten percent.
On July 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a declaratory relief action opposing the arbitration award. On October 12, 2017, the parties stipulated to arbitration.
On August 9, 2018, the Court own its own motion dismissed the case, reserving jurisdiction to enter judgment on an arbitration award.
Defendants filed the instant motion requesting that judgment be entered in their favor for the sum of $27,994.73, plus the annual interest of ten percent on the awarded amount commencing July 7, 2017.
A petition to confirm a binding arbitration shall name as respondents all parties to the arbitration and may name any other parties to be bound by the award. (CCP § 1285.) The petition shall (1) set forth the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate unless petitioner denies the existence of such an agreement; (2) set forth the name(s) of the arbitrator(s); and (3) set forth or have attached a copy of the award and written opinion of the arbitrator. (CCP § 1285.4(a)-(c).)
The petition to confirm must be served and filed no later than four years after the date of service of a signed copy of the award on the petitioner (CCP § 1288.) but may not be served and filed until at least 10 days after service of the signed copy of the award upon the petitioner. (CCP § 1288.4.)
Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute or arbitrate the matter. Defendants state that they served multiple demands on Plaintiff to commence arbitration, which Plaintiff ignored.
Plaintiff states that Defendants did not inform them of the order compelling arbitration till March 2018. Plaintiff states that arbitration commenced on May 16, 2018. On that day, Plaintiff served a demand for arbitration before ADR services. (Opp’n., Ex. A.) A subsequent email from Defendants indicates that they received the demand and were discussing their preferred arbitrators. (Opp’n., Ex. B.)
It appears that arbitration has not taken place and that nothing has happened in the last two years. Based on the delay, the Court is inclined to grant the motion and confirm LACBA’s award.
The motion has been filed within four years after the date of service of a signed copy of the award. A copy of the arbitration agreement is provided. (Mtn., Ex. A.) A copy of the arbitration award is attached to the motion which contains the name of the arbitrator. (Mtn., Ex. B.)
Conclusion: Defendants’ Motion to Confirm the Arbitration Award is GRANTED.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases