Case Number: BS145601 Hearing Date: May 14, 2014 Dept: 15

# 6 TENTATIVE RULING

DAVID MORDECAI v. CHABAD OF CALIFORNIA, et al. [#BS 145601]

8:30 a.m., Wednesday, May 14, 2014

A. RULING ON PETITIONER’S MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE:

The court struck this motion to the extent that it purported to constitute a challenge to the court under CCP 170.1 by its ORDER STRIKING STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION that was served on the parties on May 8, 2014. This motion has been ruled on and is DENIED.

B. RULING ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE FINALIZATION OF JUDGMENT:

Petitioner under his counsel’s letter dated February 5, 2014 lodged a form of (Proposed) Judgement Confirming Arbitration Award. Respondents subsequently filed their opposition. The court on April 9, 2014 served its OSC setting a hearing on April 21, 2014 to consider its concerns about various provisions requested in the (Proposed) Judgment. Petitioner at the hearing requested an opportunity to file further authorities in support of his (Proposed) Judgment, and the hearing was continued to May 14 for that purpose. Petitioner on May 6, 2014 submitted his “Response to OSC re: Finalization of Judgment; Supporting Declaration.” The court agrees with the principal points made in Petitioner’s Response.

The court’s judgment should include post-award, pre-judgment interest. Britz, Inc. v. Alfa-Land Food & Dairy Co. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1107; Pierotti v. Torian (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 17, 37. The interest calculation contained in Collison’s declaration at page 12 on the $100,000 award ($11,778.72) is different from that specified in the (Proposed Judgment) ($13,534.25). Should the court make that change in the (Proposed) Judgment?

The court also agrees that, if the arbitrators chosen by stipulation (the Beis Din) determined that all respondents are liable for the sum of money that the arbitrators found to be a loan made to one of the respondents, Chabad of Brentwood, the court should not disturb that liability determination in confirming the arbitration award..

The court recognizes that the arbitrators may have continuing jurisdiction, even though their award through the date of confirmation is confirmed by a court-issued judgment. Although CCP 1283.4 requires an arbitration award to include a determination on all questions need to determine the controversy, arbitration agreements (and awards) may contemplate future proceedings to resolve further disputes. Roehl v. Ritchie (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 338, 351.

C. RULING ON PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDMENT TO PETITION:

The court GRANTS this motion. However, the First Amendment must be filed separately so that it is a separate document in the court file. The First Amendment should be mail-served when filed; the court does not order that it is deemed denied.

* * * * * .

Petitioner is to serve notice of rulings. This TR shall be the order of the court, unless changed at the hearing, and shall be incorporated by reference in the Minute Order.

COPY SENT VIA FAX TO MP AND OP ON 3:45 P.M. ON MAY 13