Case Number: BC584751 Hearing Date: March 09, 2018 Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

MONICA SARANG;

Plaintiff,

v.

PREMIERE MEDICAL MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, et al.;

Defendants.

Case No.: BC584751

Hearing Date: March 9, 2018

Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m.

[tentative] order RE:

SARANG MEDICAL CORPORATION’S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO INTERVENE AND CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

Background

Sarang Medical Corporation (“SMC”) moves the Court to confirm a contractual arbitration award entered in favor of it and Plaintiff Monica Sarang (“Sarang”) and against Defendants Premiere Medical Center Burbank, Inc. (“PMCB”), Michael Marsh M.D., Inc. (“Marsh Inc.”), and Michael Marsh (“Marsh”) on November 23, 2015 in the amount of $482,322.90, plus attorneys’ fees ($13,735), costs ($60), prejudgment interest ($6,475, or a per diem of $132.14) and post judgment interest to be included in the judgment. Defendants PMBC and Marsh (jointly, “Defendants”) oppose the motion.

On November 15, 2017, the Court granted Sarang’s motion to confirm the same arbitration award. However, the Court rejected the Proposed Judgment submitted by Sarang because it identified SMC as a judgment creditor despite SMC not being a plaintiff in the underlying civil action.

SMC now moves pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1285 to confirm the arbitration award as to it. Defendants oppose.

Discussion

“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.”

((Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.) “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 the 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.)

SMC, as a party to the arbitration, has complied with these requirements. SMC became a party to the arbitration when it was named as a counter-respondent by Defendants. (See Becerra Decl., Ex. D.) Defendants do not dispute this fact. Instead, Defendants argue that SMC has no standing to bring the instant motion because it has “yet to formally appear” and “thereby subject itself to this Court’s jurisdiction.” (Opp’n, p. 2: 15-16.) However, the Court finds that, by filing the instant motion, SMC has made a general appearance and has submitted to this Court’s jurisdiction. ((See Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1014, 1029 [finding that “a nonparty that is not named in the pleadings makes a general appearance and submits to the court’s personal jurisdiction by participating in the proceedings”].) Therefore, the Court finds that intervention by SMC is unnecessary to proceed to a determination of the motion to confirm the arbitration award on the merits. However, the Court notes that SMC would have been entitled to leave to intervene because SMC claims an interest in the arbitration award as a prevailing party, that disposition of this action will impair SMC’s ability to protect its interest in the arbitration award, and that SMC’s interests are not adequately represented by Sarang. ((See Code Civ. Proc., § 387(b).)

Though Defendants also oppose the motion on a number of substantive grounds, the Court first addresses whether Defendants’ challenge to the award is timely. A petition to vacate or correct an arbitration award must be served and filed with the court no later than 100 days after a signed copy of the award is served on the petitioner. ((Code Civ. Proc., § 1288.) Here, the signed copy of the award was served on May 30, 2017. (Becerra Decl., Ex. B, Proof of Service of Final Binding Arbitration Award.) More than 100 days have elapsed since then, making Defendants’ challenge untimely. Defendants contend that their challenge is timely because certain matters made it impossible or impracticable to proceed with the challenge, namely, the imposition of a purported bankruptcy stay between June 15, 2017 and November 15, 2017. (Opp’n, p. 11: 7-14.) The Court finds this argument unavailing. First, as noted by SMC, there was never a bankruptcy stay applicable to Defendants. Sarang’s motion to confirm the arbitration award was continued pending the outcome of Defendants’ motion to extend the bankruptcy stay to them. The Bankruptcy Court denied that motion, so the automatic stay was never applicable to Defendants. (Reply, p. 6: 17-24.) Secondly, even if Defendants believed that a “stay” was in effect, they still proceeded to file an opposition challenging Sarang’s motion on July 20, 2017. The one case cited by Defendants is also not on point. In Shepherd v. Greene (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 989, 993, the Court of Appeal held that the time to challenge an arbitration award is tolled when a lawsuit is filed after arbitration that seeks to invalidate that award. This is not the case here.

Because SMC’s petition to confirm the arbitration award was filed after the 100-day time limit, the Court must and does disregard any response to that petition that asserts grounds to vacate the award. ((See Eternity Investments, Inc. v. Brown (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 739, 742 [affirming the trial court’s decision to “disregard defendants’ challenge [to an arbitration award]” because “defendants did not bring a timely petition or response to correct or vacate the award”].)

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, SMC’s Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award is granted. ((Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.)

SMC is ordered to file and serve within 7 days a proposed judgment in accordance with the ruling above.

SMC is ordered to provide notice of this Order.

DATED: March 9, 2018

___________________________

Honorable Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court