34-2013-00148233
Ravi Kapur vs. Warren Trumbly
Nature of Proceeding:
Filed By:
Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

Tweedy, Charles A.Defendants Warren Trumbly (“Trumbly”) and KAXT, LLC (“KAXT”) (collectively,
“Defendants”) filed a Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award. Plaintiffs Ravi Kapur, Nalini
Kapur, and Rishi Kapur (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed an Opposition to Defendants’
petition and their own Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award. Because neither Petition
complies with Code of Civil Procedure § 1285, both Petitions are DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.

A Final Arbitration Award was issued on January 22, 2014. (Exh. 8(c) to Def.’s Petition
(“Arbitration Award”).) Defendants filed their Petition on February 3, 2014, and
Plaintiffs filed their Petition on February 18, 2014.

Code of Civil Procedure § 1285 provides: “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 (emphasis added).)

It is not clear that all parties who participated in the arbitration have also been named
in this action. Defendants filed their Petition in this already-ongoing action between
themselves and Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs responded by filing their Petition in this
ongoing action. However, the arbitration also involved other individuals who are not
parties to this particular action, namely, Linda Trumbly, Jeremy Noonan, Robyn
Noonan, Alicia Torres, and Herbert Alvarado. (Compare Def.’s Petition with Exh. 8(c)
(“Arbitration Award”) attached thereto.) Yet neither Petition names as respondents
these other individuals who were parties to the arbitration award, even though the
Court’s determination regarding the arbitration award could directly impact these
individuals. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1285.) CCP §1285 permits a petition to confirm an
arbitration award only by a “party to an arbitration.”

As Plaintiffs correctly note (Pl’s Petition to Vacate at 1 n.1), Defendants’ Petition
violates Code of Civil Procedure § 1285 in that it does not “name as respondents all
parties to the arbitration.” (Compare Def.’s Petition (caption naming only Plaintiffs and
Defendants) with Arbitration Award at 1 (caption naming Plaintiffs, Defendants, and
other individuals as parties to the arbitration).) For that matter, however, Plaintiffs’
competing Petition also violates Code of Civil Procedure § 1285 for the same reason.
(Compare Pl.’s Petition with Arbitration Award.) Defendants did not serve any of these
individuals, who were parties to the arbitration, with notice of the pending Petition.
While Plaintiffs did serve these individuals with notice of Plaintiffs’ Petition, the Petition
did not clearly “name” the individuals in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §
1285. Simply serving the individuals with a copy of the Petition may not have clearly
conveyed that the Petition directly pertains to an arbitration to which they were parties.
Defendants may argue that the individuals named in the arbitration proceedings but
not named in this lawsuit need not be named in Defendants’ pending Petition because
those individuals’ interests align with Defendants’ interests — i.e., they were named,
with Defendants, as “claimants and counter-respondents” in the arbitration — such that
there is no practical purpose to requiring the individuals to be separately “named as
respondents” in Defendants’ Petition. However, nothing currently before the Court
confirms such a unity of interest, and in any event, the text of Code of Civil Procedure
§ 1285 does not state any exception for such circumstances.

All parties to the arbitration – not just those previously named in this pending action – must have a full and fair opportunity to be heard regarding whether the arbitration
award should become a judgment of this Court. “If an award is confirmed, judgment
shall be entered in conformity therewith. The judgment so entered has the same force
and effect as, and is subject to all provisions of law relating to, a judgment in a civil
action; and it may be enforced like any other judgment of the court in which it is
entered.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1287.4.)

Defendant’s pending Petition ultimately seeks entry of court judgment that would be
binding on individuals who are not parties to this action, and Plaintiffs’ pending Petition
asks the Court to vacate an arbitration award that may directly impact those same
individuals. The Court declines to make any determination regarding the arbitration
award without evidence that all parties to the arbitration award have had adequate
notice and an opportunity to be heard on the subject, in accordance with Code of Civil
Procedure § 1285.

Accordingly, Defendants’ pending Petition and Plaintiffs’ pending Petition are both
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure
§ 1285. As Plaintiffs suggest (Pl.’s Petition to Vacate at 1 n.1), such refiling may
require commencement of a new action so as to properly name all parties to the
arbitration, but the Court makes no finding on that issue.

The Court did not rely on the Declaration of Charles A. Tweedy in rendering this ruling,
so the Court declines to reach Plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections to the Declaration of
Charles A. Tweedy. The objections are OVERRULED without prejudice at this time.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to Rule of Court
3.1312 or further notice is required.