On 05/15/2018 THE JACOBSON GROUP INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against TECHNICAL MICRO CONSULTANTS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK
MJ & ASSOCIATES INC.
BACKSTAGE PAYROLL SERVICES INC.
JACOBSON PAYROLL GROUP INC.
QUANTUM PAYROLL SERVICES INC.
THE JACOBSON GROUP INC.
INTEGRITY DATA OF ILLINOIS INC.
TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS
DOES 1 TO 10
TECHNICAL MICRO CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED
ROES 1-10 INCLUSIVE
TECHNICAL MICRO CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED DBA TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS AKA TMC
MASON CAROLYN M
MASON CAROLYN MICHELLE
5600 Wilshire Blvd Apt 526 11835 W. Olumpic Blvd., Suite 1100E
Los Angeles, CA 90036
MASON CAROLYN M.
TAKENOUCHI JASON S.
MARIAM CRAIG J. ESQ.
MURCHISON & CUMMING LAW OFFICES OF
MARIAM CRAIG JOEL
Attorney at Gordon & Rees LLP
5200 9Th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
PHAM TRICIA A.
MARIAM CRAIG J.
DALY JEAN M.
4/27/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF HAZEL MAE B. PANGAN IN SUPPORT
5/4/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW) OF 05/04/2020
10/19/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF HAZEL MAE B. PANGAN ISO MOTION TO SEAL
10/19/2020: Joinder - JOINDER PLAINTIFFS JOINDER WITH, AND REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF, DEFENDANT TECHNICAL MICRO CONSULTANTS, INC.S PETITION TO CONFIRM CONTRACTUAL ARBITRATION AWARD
10/16/2018: Proof of Personal Service
7/23/2018: REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL AND NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES OF DEFENDANT, INTEGRITY DATA OF ILLIONIS, INC.
8/30/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE (CCP 1011)
10/17/2018: Minute Order - (Legacy Event Type : Motion to Compel Arbitration; Case Manage...)
10/4/2018: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) -
10/4/2018: Brief -
10/4/2018: Proof of Service by Mail -
10/4/2018: Declaration - of Jennifer Harris in Support of Defendant Technical Micro Consultant Incorporated's Further Briefing...
8/23/2018: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT INTEGRITY DATA OF ILLINOIS, INC.'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
8/30/2018: Proof of Service -
8/7/2018: Minute Order -
7/23/2018: Proof of Service -
6/25/2018: DECLARATION OF JENNIFER HARRIS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TECHNICAL MICRO CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
5/23/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Seal (a document in connection with its petition to confirm) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Status Conference (Re Binding Arbitration) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by Technical Micro Consultants Incorporated (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Status Conference Re Binding Arbitration; Hearing on Motion t...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Intent to Appear by Telephone; Filed by The Jacobson Group, Inc. (Plaintiff); Jacobson Payroll Group, Inc. (Plaintiff); Backstage Payroll Services, Inc. (Plaintiff) et al.Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Intent to Appear by Telephone; Filed by Technical Micro Consultants Incorporated (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDeclaration (Declaration of Marcia Jacobson In Support Of, Defendant Technical Micro Consultants, Inc.?s Petition To Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award); Filed by The Jacobson Group, Inc. (Plaintiff); Jacobson Payroll Group, Inc. (Plaintiff); Backstage Payroll Services, Inc. (Plaintiff) et al.Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by Technical Micro Consultants Incorporated (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMemorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by Technical Micro Consultants Incorporated (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDECLARATION OF CRAIG J. MARIAM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TECHNICAL MICRO CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY OF PROCEEDINGSRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by The Jacobson Group, Inc. (Plaintiff); Jacobson Payroll Group, Inc. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE BY CERTIFIED MAILRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by The Jacobson Group, Inc. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETCRead MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by The Jacobson Group, Inc. (Plaintiff); Jacobson Payroll Group, Inc. (Plaintiff); Backstage Payroll Services, Inc. (Plaintiff) et al.Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC706313 Hearing Date: August 21, 2020 Dept: 47
The Jacobson Group, Inc., et al. v. Technical Micro Consultants Incorporated dba Technology Management Concepts aka TMC, et al.
GIVEN THE CURRENT CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, THE COURT STRONGLY ENCOURAGES REMOTE APPEARENCES BY “LACourtConnect.” PLEASE MAKE SUCH ARRANGEMENTS IF YOU WISH TO APPEAR REMOTELY AT WWW.LACOURT.ORG/LACC/. NO OTHER TYPES OF REMOTE APPEARANCES ARE AVAILABLE FOR THIS PARTICULAR COURTROOM, INCLUDING COURT CALL. IF YOU APPEAR IN PERSON AT THE HEARING, YOU WILL BE SUBJECT TO ALL SOCIAL DISTANCING RULES, INCLUDING THE WEARING OF AN APPROPRIATE FACE MASK/COVERING (ABSENT ANY EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES) AS CONTAINED IN THE APPLICABLE GENERAL ORDERS ISSUED BY THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE L.A.S.C
(1) MOTION TO SEAL; (2) PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD
MOVING PARTY(S): (1)-(2) Petitioner Technical Micro Consultants, Inc. dba Technology Management Concepts
RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1) No opposition (and it was not calendared); (2) Statement of non-opposition filed by Plaintiffs The Jacobson Group, Inc.; Jacobson Payroll Group, Inc.; Backstage Payroll Services, Inc.; Quantum Payroll Services, Inc.; and MJ & Associates, Inc.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
This was a contractual dispute. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants failed to provide various software-related products and services that Plaintiffs purchased. The dispute went to arbitration, and the arbitrator found that the parties’ settlement was in good faith.
Petitioner moves for confirmation of the arbitration award. Petitioner had also filed a motion to seal related to this petition that was not calendared.
Petitioner Technical Micro Consultants, Inc. dba Technology Management Concepts had filed a motion to seal a document in connection with its petition to confirm the arbitration award that was not calendared. The Court hereby sets the motion to seal for hearing on this date, August 21, 2020 at 8:30 a.m., and considers it at this time.
Petitioner’s motion to seal is GRANTED.
Petitioner’s petition to confirm arbitration award is GRANTED.
Previously Uncalendared Motion to Seal
On April 27, 2020, the day before filing the petition to confirm the arbitration award, Petitioner filed a motion to seal the arbitrator’s order filed in connection with the petition to confirm. This motion to seal was not calendared. Accordingly, the Court hereby sets the motion to seal for hearing on this date, August 21, 2020 at 8:30 a.m., and considers it at this time.
Petitioner moves to seal Exhibit 8(c) of its petition to confirm arbitration, which is the arbitrator’s order, on the ground that it discloses the material terms of the parties’ confidential settlement agreement.
A motion seeking an order sealing the record must be accompanied by “a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.” (CRC Rule 2.551(b)(1).) A court may order that a record be filed under seal “only if it expressly finds facts that establish” all of the following:
(1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record;
(2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record;
(3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed;
(4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and
(5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.
A contractual obligation not to disclose particular information can constitute an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access. (Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283 [discussing Rule 243.1(d), the predecessor to Rule 2.550].)
Here, the parties’ settlement agreement, discussed in the arbitration order, is subject to a confidentiality clause. (Declaration of Hazel Mae B. Pangan ¶ 4.) Thus, Petitioner has articulated an overriding interest that potentially overcomes the right to public access to these records, if the other factors are met.
Here, the overriding interest in upholding the parties’ contractual obligation to keep the settlement secret and in encouraging settlement supports sealing the record.
Accordingly, this requirement is satisfied.
The California Supreme Court has recognized that “[r]outine public disclosure of private settlement terms would ‘chill the parties’ ability in many cases to settle the action before trial.” (Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter (2019) 7 Cal.5th 781, 793.)
This requirement is satisfied.
The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored to include only the arbitration order, which discusses the parties’ settlement throughout.
This requirement is met.
Here, Petitioner has asked to seal only the document in which the parties’ settlement terms are discussed. No less restrictive means exists to achieve the same overriding interest of enforcing the parties’ obligation to keep this information confidential and encouraging settlement.
This requirement is met.
In sum, Defendant has demonstrated that all of the CRC Rule 2.550(d) requirements for sealing have been met. Accordingly, the motion to seal the record is GRANTED.
Petition To Confirm Arbitration Award
Petitioner moves for confirmation of arbitration award.
Any party to an arbitration award may petition the court to confirm, correct, or vacate the award. (CCP § 1285.) “If a petition or response under this chapter is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made, whether rendered in this state or another state, unless in accordance with this chapter it corrects the award and confirms it as corrected, vacates the award or dismisses the proceeding.” (CCP § 1286 (bold emphasis added).) A petition to confirm a binding arbitration must 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.)
Here, all parties to the arbitration are named in ¶ 1 of the petition. The agreement to arbitrate is described in ¶ 4 of the petition and attached as Exhibit 4(b). The name of the arbitrator, Hon. Louise A. LaMothe, is set forth in ¶ 6 of the Petition.
A copy of the executed arbitration award was filed conditionally under seal as Exhibit 8(c) to the petition and is described in ¶ 8(b). The award was served on March 19, 2020, and the petition to confirm was filed on April 28, 2020. is attached as Exhibit C to the petition and was served on December 20, 2019. The petition to confirm was filed on March 24, 2020. No proof of service is attached to the petition, but Plaintiffs filed their statement of non-opposition before Petitioner served notice of the scheduled hearing date, suggesting that they were served with the petition when it was filed. In any event, even if the parties had not been served until the hearing was scheduled, the relevant dates are all within four years from the date the award was served and more than ten days after the award was served. Accordingly, the Petition to Confirm was filed and served in accordance with the time limits set forth in CCP § 1288.
Plaintiffs have stated that they are not opposed to the petition, and Petitioner’s co-defendant Integrity Data of Illinois, Inc. has not opposed it.
Accordingly, given that it meets all of the statutory requirements, the petition to confirm the arbitration award is GRANTED.
Moving party to give notice, unless waived.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 21, 2020 ___________________________________
Randolph M. Hammock
Judge of the Superior Court
Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.