Case Number: EC040584    Hearing Date: August 01, 2014    Dept: A

Hoso Foods v Knight of Columbus

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

Calendar: 1
Case No: EC040584
Date: 8/1/14

MP: Defendant, Columbus Club, Inc.
RP: Plaintiff, Hoso Foods, Inc

RELIEF REQUESTED:
Order confirming the arbitration award

DISCUSSION:
This case arises from the claim of Plaintiff, Hoso Foods, Inc., that the Defendant, Knights of Columbus, breached the lease agreement when they promised that the property could be used as a banquet facility but knew that the liquor permit would be revoked. The Plaintiff pleaded claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, conspiracy, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, concealment, rescission, and fraud.
By stipulation of the parties, the parties submitted the matter to binding arbitration. The award issued by the first arbitrator was vacated and the parties submitted the claim to a second arbitrator. On September 10, 2013, the second arbitrator, Judge Mortimer, issued an arbitration award against Hoso Foods on its Complaint and in favor of Columbus Club, Inc. on its Cross-Complaint in the amount of $61,600 plus reasonable attorney’s fees (see copy of award in exhibit B to declaration of Vamsi Vemuru in support of motion).
Columbus Club sought an award of $716,861.50 in attorney’s fees and $59,940.08 in costs. The parties submitted briefs regarding the issue of attorney’s fees and the arbitrator issued a supplemental award on October 21, 2013 that granted $42,943.39 to Columbus Club for costs, but no award for attorney’s fees (see copy of supplemental award in exhibit G to declaration of Vamsi Vemuru in support of motion). The supplemental arbitration award stated that no attorney’s fees were awarded because attorneys for Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, which was the attorney that represented Columbus Club in the second arbitration, had stated “over and over again” that this was a pro bono matter. Further, the award indicated there was no evidence that Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, would seek reimbursement for his services. The award stated that to award attorney’s fees under these circumstances would create a windfall.
Columbus Club submitted a request to correct the supplemental arbitration award with evidence that Columbus Club’s prior counsel, who had represented it during the first arbitration, had not provided representation on a pro bono basis. The arbitrator then issued a correction in which he granted $10,530 in attorney’s fees for services provided by prior counsel (see copy of correction in exhibit J to declaration of Vamsi Vemuru in support of motion).
Columbus Club then filed a Petition to Correct the Award and to Confirm the Award as Corrected. On February 18, 2014, the Court confirmed the award with the exception of attorney’s fees. The Court remanded the issue of attorney’s fees incurred by Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, back to the arbitrator. On April 9, 2014, the arbitrator issued an award of $718,838.70 in attorney’s fees and costs of $561.20.

This hearing concerns the motion of Columbus Club to confirm the arbitration award to add the additional attorney’s fees. CCP section 1285 permits any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made to petition the Court to confirm, correct or vacate the award. CCP section 1285.4 requires the petition to:

1) Set forth the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate unless the petitioner denies the existence of such an agreement;
2) Set forth names of the arbitrators; and
3) Set forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any.

CCP section 1286 states that if the petition is duly served and filed, the Court shall confirm the award as made, whether rendered in this state or another state.
The Petition includes the copy of the stipulation to submit this dispute to binding arbitration in exhibit A to the declaration of Vamsi Vemuru. The Petition includes a copy of the arbitration award, which identifies the name of the arbitrator as Wendell Mortimer, in exhibit C to the Vemuru declaration. Exhibit N contains the further finding regarding attorney’s fees.
A review of the proof of service reveals that the petition was duly filed and served.

Therefore, the Court will grant the petition to confirm the award as a judgment.

RULING:
GRANT Respondent’s Petition to Confirm the award as a judgment.