Filed 4/9/20 Hamilton v. ABC Legal Services CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

BENNIE HAMILTON,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

ABC LEGAL SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

B297336

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. 19CMCP00038)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Maurice A. Leiter, Judge. Dismissed.

Bennie Hamilton, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Meservy Law, London D. Meservy; Dente Law and Matthew S. Dente for Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff and appellant Bennie Hamilton (Hamilton) challenges a trial court order denying his petition to disqualify the American Arbitration Association (AAA) from administering an arbitration proceeding with ABC Legal Services, Inc. (ABC).

Because Hamilton purports to appeal from a nonappealable order, we dismiss his appeal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

From the bare bones record provided, we glean the following facts:

Hamilton entered into a contract for professional services with ABC. This contract contains an arbitration agreement naming the AAA as the required arbitrator.

On February 11, 2019, Hamilton filed a petition in the Los Angeles County Superior Court to disqualify the AAA from administering arbitration and to compel ABC to “arbitration conducted by Superior Court.”

On March 13, 2019, the trial court denied Hamilton’s petition.

Hamilton then filed a second petition to disqualify the AAA from administering the arbitration proceeding. On April 23, 2019, the trial court denied this second petition on the grounds that (1) Hamilton failed to show that he served the petition on ABC, (2) Hamilton failed to provide any authority requiring the disqualification of the AAA for an alleged failure to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6, and (3) Hamilton failed to establish that the AAA has a conflict of interest.

On April 30, 2019, Hamilton filed his notice of appeal from “Judgment after court trial.”

DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, we must determine whether we have jurisdiction to consider this appeal. It is well-established that our jurisdiction extends only to appealable judgments and appealable orders. (Griset v. Fair Political Practices Commission (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 696.) “An appealable judgment or order is essential to appellate jurisdiction.” (Winter v. Rice (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 679, 681.)

California Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1 sets forth the judgments and orders that may be appealed. Nothing in that statute identifies an order denying a petition to disqualify an arbitration tribunal as appealable. It follows that Hamilton’s appeal must be dismissed.

In so ruling, we note that Hamilton’s notice of appeal indicates that he is challenging a judgment after court trial. But no such trial occurred in this case, and no judgment was ever entered.

In his opening brief, Hamilton argues that his appeal is proper pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1294, subdivision (d). That statute provides, in relevant part, that “[a]n aggrieved party may appeal from: [¶] . . . [¶] (d) A judgment entered pursuant to [the California Arbitration Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 1280 et seq.].” That statute does not apply here because there was no judgment entered pursuant to the California Arbitration Act.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed. ABC is entitled to costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

_______________________, Acting P. J.

ASHMANN-GERST

We concur:

__________________________, J.

CHAVEZ

__________________________, J.

HOFFSTADT