Case Number: BS130048 Hearing Date: May 14, 2014 Dept: 34

Moving Party: Petitioner Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP (“petitioner”)

Resp. Party: Respondent Suzan Hughes (“respondent”)

Petitioner’s motion to confirm the arbitration award is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND:

Petitioner commenced this action on 1/27/11 by filing a petition to compel arbitration of a dispute between the parties. Petitioner represented respondent for nearly eight years in connection with probate court proceedings, and a dispute arose regarding respondent’s alleged failure to pay over $1 million in outstanding legal fees and costs. (See Pet., ¶¶ 4-5.) The client engagement agreement included an arbitration provision requiring the parties to arbitrate disputes as to fees and costs. (Id., ¶ 9, Exh. 1.)

On 5/10/11, the Court, the Hon. Charles F. Palmer presiding, granted petitioner’s petition to compel arbitration. On 5/24/11, the parties submitted a stipulation that Hon. John Zebrowski of ADR Services would be appointed as arbitrator.

The arbitrator issued a final arbitration award on 3/3/14. The arbitrator found that respondent was personally liable for reasonable fees of petitioner that were not paid out of guardianship estate funds. (See Def. Exh. 7, p. 5.) The arbitrator found that the fees requested were reasonable. (Id., p. 6.) The arbitrator awarded to petitioner and against respondent the sum of $1,316,375.31, plus pre-judgment interest of $985,774.81. (Id., p. 7.)

On 4/21/14, petitioner filed the instant motion to confirm the arbitration award.

On 4/9/14, respondent commenced a separate action, BS148094, by filing a petition to vacate the arbitration award. Respondent filed a notice of related cases on 5/1/14.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS:

Respondent has not filed a substantive opposition to this motion. Instead, respondent’s counsel filed a declaration stating that respondent has commenced a separate action consisting of a Petition to Vacate the Arbitration Award. (Jacobs Decl., ¶ 2.) Respondent’s counsel requests that the instant motion be continued to allow for consideration of the petition to vacate the arbitration award.

Respondent did not serve the Petition to Vacate until May 1, 2014, ten days after this Petition to Confirm was served. Respondent
has still not set a hearing date for her petition to vacate. More importantly, the Court has not deemed BS148094 and the instant action to be related. Therefore, the Court will only determine the merits of the instant motion to confirm the award. The Court declines to consider the merits of another petition pending in another department and declines to continue the hearing on this motion simply because respondent chose to commence a separate action.

ANALYSIS:

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1285, “any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award. The petition shall name as respondents all parties to the arbitration and may name as respondents any other persons bound by the arbitration award.” Section 1285.4 further provides that

[a] petition under this chapter shall: [¶] (a) 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. [¶] (b) Set forth names of the arbitrators. [¶] (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(a) (c).) “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 proceedings.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.)

The general rule is that a court will not review “the merits of the controversy, the validity of the arbitrator’s reasoning, or the sufficiency of the evidence.” (Jordan v. DMV (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 431, 443.)

Petitioner duly served and filed this motion. Petitioner attaches copies of the agreements to submit the claims to arbitration, sets forth the names of the arbitrators, and provides the Court with a copy of the award. (See Leonard Decl., ¶ 10, Exhs. 1, 5, 7.) As discussed above, respondent fails to substantively oppose the motion.

Petitioner’s motion is GRANTED.