This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/17/2021 at 07:24:45 (UTC).

TOURNEY PROFESSIONAL PARTNERS, LLC VS JACK E. WASSERSTEIN, D.D.S

Case Summary

On 01/29/2021 TOURNEY PROFESSIONAL PARTNERS, LLC filed an Other - Arbitration lawsuit against JACK E WASSERSTEIN, D D S. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Santa Monica Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Other .
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0037

  • Filing Date:

    01/29/2021

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Other - Arbitration

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Petitioner

TOURNEY PROFESSIONAL PARTNERS LLC

Respondent

WASSERSTEIN JACK E. D.D.S

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorneys

MORGAN JUSTIN J.S.

MORGAN JUSTIN

Respondent Attorney

DECLERCQ WILLIAM

 

Court Documents

Order - ORDER CONFIRMING THE ARBITRATION AWARD

6/25/2021: Order - ORDER CONFIRMING THE ARBITRATION AWARD

Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

7/9/2021: Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

Memorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest

7/13/2021: Memorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest

Affidavit - AFFIDAVIT OF JUSTIN MORGAN, ESQ. REGARDING ACCRUED INTEREST AND IDENTITY OF JUDGMENT DEBTOR

7/13/2021: Affidavit - AFFIDAVIT OF JUSTIN MORGAN, ESQ. REGARDING ACCRUED INTEREST AND IDENTITY OF JUDGMENT DEBTOR

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD)

5/26/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD)

Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6)

2/17/2021: Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

2/23/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 02/23/2021

2/23/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 02/23/2021

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

2/24/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

2/17/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Response to Petition

2/17/2021: Response to Petition

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

2/17/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Declaration - DECLARATION OF JACK E. WASSERSTEIN IN SUPPORT OF HIS RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO CONFIRM, AND COUNTER-PETITION TO VACATE, INTERIM ARBITRATION AWARD

2/17/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF JACK E. WASSERSTEIN IN SUPPORT OF HIS RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO CONFIRM, AND COUNTER-PETITION TO VACATE, INTERIM ARBITRATION AWARD

Notice of Case Reassignment/Vacate Hearings

2/18/2021: Notice of Case Reassignment/Vacate Hearings

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

2/18/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 02/18/2021

2/18/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 02/18/2021

Declaration - DECLARATION OF JUSTIN MORGAN, ESQ IN SUPPORT OF TOURNEY PROFESSIONAL PARTNERS, LLC'S REPLY TO WASSERSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO CONFIRM THE INTERIM ARBITRATION AWARD

2/22/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF JUSTIN MORGAN, ESQ IN SUPPORT OF TOURNEY PROFESSIONAL PARTNERS, LLC'S REPLY TO WASSERSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO CONFIRM THE INTERIM ARBITRATION AWARD

Declaration - DECLARATION OF VIGINIA HUGHSON-OTTE IN SUPPORT OF TOURNEY PROFESSIONAL PARTNERS, LLC REPLY TO WASSERSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO TOURNEY'S PETITION TO CONFIRM THE INTERIM ARBITRATION AWARD

2/22/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF VIGINIA HUGHSON-OTTE IN SUPPORT OF TOURNEY PROFESSIONAL PARTNERS, LLC REPLY TO WASSERSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO TOURNEY'S PETITION TO CONFIRM THE INTERIM ARBITRATION AWARD

11 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/13/2021
  • DocketMemorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest; Filed by Tourney Professional Partners, LLC (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2021
  • DocketAffidavit (OF JUSTIN MORGAN, ESQ. REGARDING ACCRUED INTEREST AND IDENTITY OF JUDGMENT DEBTOR); Filed by Tourney Professional Partners, LLC (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2021
  • DocketNotice (OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER); Filed by Tourney Professional Partners, LLC (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2021
  • DocketOrder (CONFIRMING THE ARBITRATION AWARD); Filed by Tourney Professional Partners, LLC (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Petition (To Confirm Arbitration Award) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Petition To Confirm Arbitration Award)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Tourney Professional Partners, LLC (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2021
  • Docketat 08:52 AM in Department M; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 02/23/2021); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
6 More Docket Entries
  • 02/18/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 02/18/2021); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2021
  • DocketResponse to Petition; Filed by Jack E. Wasserstein, D.D.S (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2021
  • DocketDeclaration (OF JACK E. WASSERSTEIN IN SUPPORT OF HIS RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO CONFIRM, AND COUNTER-PETITION TO VACATE, INTERIM ARBITRATION AWARD); Filed by Jack E. Wasserstein, D.D.S (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2021
  • DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Jack E. Wasserstein, D.D.S (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Jack E. Wasserstein, D.D.S (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Jack E. Wasserstein, D.D.S (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2021
  • DocketPetition to Confirm Arbitration Award; Filed by Tourney Professional Partners, LLC (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Tourney Professional Partners, LLC (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******0037    Hearing Date: May 26, 2021    Dept: M

CASE NAME: Tourney Professional Partners, LLC v. Jack E. Wasserstein, D.D.S

CASE NO.: *******0037

HEARING DATE: 05/26/2021

MOTION: Tourney Professional Partners, LLC’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

Background

Petitioner Tourney Professional Partners, LLC (“Tourney Professional Partners”) filed a petition to confirm the amended interim arbitration award of December 17, 2020. The interim award requires respondent Jake E Wasserstein, D.D.S. to pay $350,103.67 in attorney’s fees and costs. (See Pet. at p. 55.).

Respondent Dr. Wasserstein opposes the petition and seeks to vacate the underlying award. In the response to the petition, Dr. Wasserstein argues that “the award was obtained by corruption, fraud, or other unfair means,” “the misconduct of a neutral arbitrator substantially prejudiced petitioner's rights,” “the arbitrator exceeded his or her authority, and the award cannot be fairly corrected,” and “the arbitrator unfairly refused to postpone the hearing or to hear evidence useful to settle the dispute.” (See Response at (c)(1).)

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.” (Code Civ. Proc., ;1285.) The petition must “(a) [s]et 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. [and] (c) Set forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any.” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 1285.4.) The petition must also “name as respondents all parties to the arbitration and may name as respondents any other persons bound by the arbitration award.” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 1285.) A petition to confirm an award must be served and filed within four years after the date the petitioner was served with a signed copy of the award. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 1288.)

“A response to a petition under this chapter may request the court to dismiss the petition or to confirm, correct or vacate the award.” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 1285.2.) A response shall, “[u]nless a copy thereof is set forth in or attached to the petition . . .(a) [s]et forth the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate unless the respondent denies the existence of such an agreement[;] (b) [s]et forth the names of the arbitrators[;] [or] (c) [s]et forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any.” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 1285.6 [emphasis added].) “A response shall be served and filed within 10 days after service of the petition except that if the petition is served in the manner provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 1290.4, the response shall be served and filed within 30 days after service of the petition. The time provided in this section for serving and filing a response may be extended by an agreement in writing between the parties to the court proceeding or, for good cause, by order of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 1290.6.)

“Failure to file a timely response prevents a party from vacating an award on any of the grounds provided in section 1286.2. (Davis v. Calaway (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 309, 311, 121 Cal.Rptr. 570; MacDonald v. San Diego State University (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 67, 79–81, 168 Cal.Rptr. 392.)” (United Firefighters of Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1576, 1581.

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.)

“If an award is confirmed, judgment shall be entered in conformity therewith. The judgment so entered has the same force and effect as, and is subject to all the provisions of law relating to, a judgment in a civil action of the same jurisdictional classification; and it may be enforced like any other judgment of the court in which it is entered, in an action of the same jurisdictional classification.” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 1287.4.)

Analysis

Petitioner seeks an order confirming the amended interim arbitration award. The petition complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 1285.4.

The Court notes that Petitioner’s request to confirm the arbitration award does not contain the full judgment. The Judgment pursuant to the interim arbitration award was:

Dr. Wasserstein shall have judgment against Tourney Professional Partners, LLC, for the sum of $5,584 on his breach of contract cause of action.

Dr. Wasserstein shall take nothing by is other causes of action and/or theories.

Tourney Professional Partners, LLC shall have the lawful right to purchase the 16% share of Tourney Professional Partners held by Dr. Wasserstein for the sum of 1,438,000. Both Parties are ordered to take all reasonable steps to complete this transaction with all deliberate speed.

Tourney Professional Partners, LLC shall take nothing in its cause of action against Dr. Wasserstein for damages arising from the inability of the members to secure $250,000 cash in the Chase refinance.

(Ex. 5 to Morgan Reply Decl. at p. 211.). The original interim award also provided that Dr. Wasserstein and Tourney Professional Partners would recover attorney’s fees and costs under paragraph 14.18 of the operating agreement. (Id.)

Tourney Professional Partners argues that Respondent has missed the deadline to challenge the original interim award. Tourney Professional Partners provides evidence that the original interim award was served on September 22, 2020. (See Ex. 5 to Morgan Reply Decl. at p. 212). Tourney Professional Partners argues that Dr. Wasserstein only had 100 days under Code of Civil Procedure section 1288. Section 1288 provides in part, “A petition to vacate 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 1288.) Here, one hundred days after the interim award was on December 31, 2020. Dr. Wasserstein filed his response seeking to vacate the arbitration award on February 17, 2021. Dr. Wasserstein seeks to vacate the underlying arbitration award contending that (1) the arbitrator unreasonably refused repeated requests for continuance, prejudicing Dr. Wasserstein, (2) the arbitrator engaged in misconduct, and (3) exceeded his jurisdiction by (A) engaging in a valuation exercise that the parties agreed would be determined by independent appraisers and (B) awarding Dr. Wasserstein only $5,000 in attorney’s fees.

Here, since most of Dr. Wasserstein’s response seeks to vacate the substantive portion of the interim award which was served in September 2020, the Court finds that Dr. Wasserstein response regarding these contentions is untimely. The amended interim award contained the Arbitrator’s specific award as to attorney’s fees and that award was served on December 17, 2020. (See attachment 8(c) to Pet. at p. 56.) Therefore, the Court only considers the response with respect to the attorney’s fees awarded in the amended interim award.

The amended interim award contains the requested $350,103.67. The arbitrator awarded Dr. Wasserstein $5,000 in attorney’s fees for prevailing on his breach of contract claim. (See Ex. 6 to Morgan Reply Decl. at p.226.) The arbitrator also awarded Tourney Professional Partners, LLC attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $350,103.67. (Id.)

Dr. Wasserstein argues the amount of attorney’s fees is an error and exceeded the Arbitrator’s jurisdiction, because the effect of his award reduced Dr. Wasserstein reasonable attorney’s fees to almost zero. In reply, Tourney Professional Partners argues that Dr. Wasserstein’s challenge to the award on this basis is a challenge to the award on the merits and must be denied. “Generally, in the absence of a specific agreement by the parties to the contrary, a court may not review the merits of an arbitration award.” (Haworth v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th 372, 380, as modified (Sept. 1, 2010) [citing Cable Connection, Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1334, 1344–1345].) Tourney Professional Partners argues that the section authorizing vacation of arbitration awards is narrowly construed and that Dr. Wasserstein contention that the arbitrator exceed his authority is without merit. “Arbitrators do not exceed their powers by reaching erroneous factual or legal conclusions on the merits of the parties' claims, even if the award causes substantial injustice to one of the parties.” (Emerald Aero, LLC v. Kaplan (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 1125, 1138, as modified on denial of reh'g (Mar. 21, 2017) [citations omitted].) Here, Dr. Wasserstein’s complaint is that he did not obtain a higher award of attorney’s fees, despite the fact that he prevailed on only one claim of ten. Dr. Wasserstein has not shown that the arbitrator exceeded his authority in issuing the attorney’s fees awards.

While Tourney Professional Partners only seeks to confirm a portion of the arbitration award, this appears to be improper. Both the original and the amended interim award provided that Dr. Wasserstein was entitled to $5,584 on his breach of contract claim and nothing else on all other claims. (Ex. 5 to Morgan Reply Decl. at p. 210, Ex. 6 at 221.) Both the original and amended interim award provide that Tourney Professional Partners had the lawful right to purchase the 16% share of Tourney Professional Partners held by Dr. Wasserstein for the sum of $1,438,000 and that Tourney Professional Partners obtains nothing else on its claim for damages arising from the inability of the members to secure $250,000 cash in the Chase refinance. (Ex. 5 to Morgan Reply Decl. at p. 211, Ex. 6 at 22.) Finally, both the interim award and the amended interim award provided for attorney’s fees, except the amended award provided the amounts.

Since the Court finds no basis to vacate the arbitration award, the petition to confirm the arbitration award is GRANTED.


Case Number: *******0037 Hearing Date: February 10, 2022 Dept: M

CASE NAME: Tourney Professional Partners, LLC v. Jack E. Wasserstein, D.D.S

CASE NO.: *******0037

MOTION: Wasserstein’s Motion to Strike or Tax Costs

date: 02/10/2022

Legal standard

A prevailing party in litigation may recover costs, including but not limited to filing fees. (Code Civ. Proc., 1033.5(a)(1).) “A prevailing party who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after [1] the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal by the clerk under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.5 or [2] the date of service of written notice of entry of judgment or dismissal, or [3] within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(a).) “The time provisions relating to the filing of a memorandum of costs, while not jurisdictional, are mandatory.” (Sanabria v. Embrey (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 422, 426 [quoting Hydratec, Inc. v. Sun Valley 260 Orchard & Vineyard Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 924, 929].)

Under California Rules of Court Rule 3.1700, a party may file and serve a motion to tax costs listed in a memorandum of costs. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(b).) Under Rule 3.1700(b)(1), “Any notice of motion to strike or to tax costs must be served and filed 15 days after service of the cost memorandum. If the cost memorandum was served by mail, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. If the cost memorandum was served electronically, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(a)(4).” A verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses, and services therein listed were necessarily incurred. (Rappenecker v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc. (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 256, 266.) A party seeking to tax costs must provide evidence to rebut this prima facie showing. (Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1266.) Mere statements unsupported by facts are insufficient to rebut the prima facie showing that costs were necessarily incurred. (Id.)

Analysis

On July 13, 2021, Tourney Professional Partners, LLC (“Tourney”) filed a memorandum of costs after judgment. On July 28, 2021, Jack E. Wasserstein, D.D.S. (“Wasserstein”) filed a motion to tax costs. Wasserstein filed a notice of non-receipt of opposition on February 3, 2022. Tourney withdrew its Memorandum of Costs and related documents (“Memorandum of Costs”) on February 4, 2022.

Since the motion to tax costs is based on a memorandum of costs that has been withdrawn, the Court takes the Motion to Tax costs off calendar.


related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where TOURNEY PROFESSIONAL PARTNERS LLC is a litigant