Kyrill Firshein V. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.

VALLE vs HON SHERIDAN CVRI2305751 Petition re: Arbitration Award REED (RET) VALLE vs HON SHERIDAN CVRI2305751 Petition re: Vacate Arbitration Award REED (RET) Tentative Ruling: This is a petition to vacate or amend an arbitration award by Petitioner Richard Valle against Respondents Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and Southern California/The Permanente Medical Group, Inc. The arbitration was based on Valle’s allegations of medical malpractice. In response, Respondents filed an answer and a competing petition to confirm the arbitration award. Claimant alleged five specific negligent failures on the part of Respondents, to comply with standard of care in the medical community: Between April, 2020 and the end of December, 2020, Respondents fell below the applicable standard of care of specialty physicians in the medical community, by: (1) failing to diagnose Claimant with a steroid allergy; (2) failing to cease prescribing steroids for Claimant’s complaints; (3) failing to rule out the possibility of Claimant suffering from systemic contact dermatitis; (4) failing to timely conduct a patch test on Claimant; and, (5) failing to timely prescribe Dupixent for Claimant’s complaints. An Arbitration Hearing was held on July 10, 11, 12 and 13 at the offices of ADR Services, Inc., Los Angeles, California. Present were Claimant Richard Valle and his attorney Emmanuel C. Akudinobi of the firm Akudinobi & Ikonte. Representing Respondents Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Monica Huynh, D.O., Anand Raja Bhupatty, M.D., Charlie Chulwon Lee, M.D. and George A. Salman, D.O. were attorneys Scott A. Blakeley and Juan J. Cueto of LaFollette, Johnson, DeHaas, Fesler & Ames. The arbitrator found that the testimony of Valle’s expert, Dr. Carson, was not persuasive. On the other hand, the arbitrator found the testimony of Respondent’s experts, Dr. Yamauchi and Dr. Meth, were persuasive. The arbitrator found that testimony of both Dr. Yamauchi and Dr. Meth established that there was no breach in the standard of care by Southern California Permanente Medical Group and its physicians in their diagnosis and treatment of Richard Valle. They used the care, knowledge and skill that other reasonably careful physicians would use in similar circumstances. Petitioner’s petition alleges that the award was obtained by corruption, fraud or other unfair means the arbitrator was corrupt, the misconduct of the arbitrator substantially prejudiced petitioner’s rights, the arbitrator exceeded his or her authority, and the award cannot be fairly corrected and the arbitrator unfairly refused to postpone the hearing or to hear evidence useful to settle the dispute. The petition further states that the arbitrator did not review and accept all of the evidence. In support of his petition, Petitioner submitted his declaration, which stats that at Loma Linda, it was revealed to him that the doctors at Kaiser should have Patch tested him earlier and compared the results with his previous allergy charts. Had they done that and listened to him earlier, instead of their trial and error and using him as a guinea pig, he would not have gone through the hell that he went through that nearly drove him to taking his life. In opposition, Respondents assert that the petition is untimely and he fails to meet his burden to establish proper grounds to vacate the award. Therefore, Respondents assert that the Court should deny claimant’s petition and instead enter an order confirming the award in favor of respondents. Respondents assert that based on claimant’s filings thus far, it appears that claimant’s primary argument is that he believes the Arbitrator made some error of fact or law. But California law is clear that this is not a valid basis to vacate an arbitration award. There is no evidence that the award was “procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means” or that there was corruption by the arbitrator. There is no evidence that claimant’s rights “were substantially prejudiced” by any “misconduct of a neutral arbitrator.” The Award did not violate any unwaivable statutory right or contravene any explicit legislative expression of public policy; therefore, there is no evidence that the arbitrator exceeded her powers. Further, there was no refusal of the arbitrator to postpone the hearing nor does Valle identify any evidence material to the controversy that the arbitrator refused to hear. Bottom line, Respondents assert that Valle has not satisfied his burden to demonstrate that he is entitle to relief on any grounds. Procedural Issues Code of Civil Procedure section 1288 provides that “A petition to vacate an award or to correct an award shall be served and filed not later than 100 days after the date of the service of a signed copy of the award on the petitioner.” Here, the Award was served on July 25, 2023 and the Amended and Final Award was served on October 4, 2023. The original petition in this case was filed on October 27, 2023, improperly naming the arbitrator as respondent. On April 8 2024, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition correcting the names of respondent after dismissing the arbitrator from this action. According to Respondents, Valle served his petition on them on April 12, 2024. Here, while the petition was timely filed, there was untimely service on the proper respondents that was completed well beyond the 100-day timeframe allowed in CCP §1288.2. However, the 100-day deadline is not jurisdictional and does not preclude the court from considering equitable reasons for failure to meet the deadline. (Law Finance Group, LLC v. Key (2023) 14 Cal.5th 932, 941.) Neither party addresses whether or not equitable tolling or estoppel might apply in light of the facts in this case where Petitioner timely filed the petition, but did not name the proper respondents. Accordingly, the court will not deny the petition on the grounds it was untimely served. Pursuant to CCP §1288 “[a] petition to confirm an award shall be served and filed not later than four years after the date of service of a signed copy of the award on the petitioner.” Accordingly, the petition to confirm the arbitration award was timely filed and served. Pursuant to CCP §1285.2, “a response to a petition under this chapter may request the court to dismiss the petition or to confirm, correct or vacate the award.” However, such response requesting that the award be vacated or corrected must be served and filed no later than 100 days after the date of service of the award. (CCP § 1288.2.) Therefore, Petitioner’s response to Respondent’s petition cannot form the basis to vacate or correct the award. Analysis Petition to Vacate Award: CCP §1286.2 provides as follows: (a) Subject to Section 1286.4, the court shall vacate the award if the court determines any of the following: (1) The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means. (2) There was corruption in any of the arbitrators. (3) The rights of the party were substantially prejudiced by misconduct of a neutral arbitrator. (4) The arbitrators exceeded their powers and the award cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy submitted. (5) The rights of the party were substantially prejudiced by the refusal of the arbitrators to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or by the refusal of the arbitrators to hear evidence material to the controversy or by other conduct of the arbitrators contrary to the provisions of this title. (6) An arbitrator making the award either: (A) failed to disclose within the time required for disclosure a ground for disqualification of which the arbitrator was then aware; or (B) was subject to disqualification upon grounds specified in Section 1281.91 but failed upon receipt of timely demand to disqualify himself or herself as required by that provision. However, this subdivision does not apply to arbitration proceedings conducted under a collective bargaining agreement between employers and employees or between their respective representatives. The petition identifies as grounds for vacating the award subsections (1) – (5). However, a party challenging an arbitration award bears the burden of establishing entitlement to relief. (Heimlich v. Shivji (2019) 7 Cal.5th 350, 370.) Claimant has not satisfied this burden. Accordingly, the court denies the petition to vacate the award. Petition to Confirm Award: “If the trial court which does not dismiss the petition also does not correct or vacate an arbitration award, it must confirm the award.” (Law Offices of David S. Karton v. Segreto (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1, 9.) Entry of judgment in conformity therewith is required pursuant to CCP §1287.4. (Id.) Accordingly, the Court confirms the award as it has denied the petition to vacate or correct the award. Summary: DENY the petition to vacate or correct the award. GRANT the petition to confirm the award.

Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Wednesday, July 10, 2024, Line 1. PETITIONER PRIMROSE ALLOYS, INC.'s MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION. Petitioner's unopposed petition to confirm arbitration award is granted. For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RBU)

Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Wednesday, July 10, 2024, Line 2. PETITIONER WELLS FARGO CLEARING SERVICES, LLC's Hearing On Petition To Confirm Arbitration Award. Petitioner's unopposed petition to confirm arbitration award is granted. For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RBU)

Case Number: 23STCP04632 Hearing Date: July 15, 2024 Dept: 26 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (CCP § 1008, et seq.) TENTATIVE RULING: Respondent Tracy Fonenettes Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. ANALYSIS: On December 27, 2023, Petitioner Ava, Inc. (Petitioner) filed the instant Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award against Respondent Tracy Fontenette (Respondent). Respondent filed an opposition on April 29, 2024. The Petition came for hearing on May 1, 2024 at which time Respondent appeared and argued. (Minute Order, 05/01/24.) Following Respondents oral argument, the Court granted the Petition and ordered Petitioner to file and serve a proposed judgment within 20 days. On May 22, 2024, the Court entered judgment in favor of Petitioner and against Respondent. Respondent filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration on May 13, 2024. No opposition has been filed to date. Discussion The Motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (a), which states in relevant part: When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a).) The Court lacks the jurisdiction to reconsider a prior ruling, on motion of a party, where the motion does not comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (e); Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1106.) Additionally, there is a diligence requirement: Courts have construed section 1008 to require a party filing an application for reconsideration or a renewed application to show diligence with a satisfactory explanation for not having presented the new or different information earlier. ( Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 830, 839.) Respondent brings the Motion for Reconsideration on two grounds. First, that if the Petition is granted, it will be unduly prejudicial to Respondent. Second, Petitioner failed to comply fully with the Arbitration Act to give this Court jurisdiction. Neither of these grounds constitutes new or different facts, circumstances, or law. The Motion does not explain and there appears to be no reason why, these arguments could not have been raised in Respondents opposition to the Petition or at oral argument. Therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction to reconsider its prior ruling on the Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award. Conclusion Respondent Tracy Fonenettes Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. Court clerk to give notice.

Case Number: 23STCP04122 Hearing Date: July 9, 2024 Dept: 48 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT STRIS & MAHER LLP, Plaintiff, vs. TONY DIAB, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: 23STCP04122 [TENTATIVE] ORDER CONTINUING PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD Dept. 48 8:30 a.m. July 9, 2024 On November 8, 2023, Petitioner Stris & Maher LLP filed a Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award. On January 4, 2024, Respondent Daniel S. March filed an opposition. On May 23, 2024, Petitioner filed a Motion to Grant the Petition to Confirm Attorney-Client Fee Arbitration Award. The Court did not grant Petitioner leave to amend the Petition, and Respondent March had already responded to the Petition. The Court orders the May 23, 2024 Motion STRICKEN for not being filed in accordance with law or a court order. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) On May 29, 2024, Petitioner filed a Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service. No dismissal was enteredor even requestedand the Notice does not attach a copy of any dismissal. The Court orders the May 29, 2024 Notice STRICKEN. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) On June 3, 2024, Petitioner dismissed Respondent Tony Diab. On June 21, 2024, Respondent March filed an opposition to the May 23, 2024 motion. On June 28, 2024, Petitioner filed a reply. A party may petition the court to confirm, correct, or vacate an arbitration award, and a response to a petition may request that the court dismiss the petition or confirm, correct, or vacate the award. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1285, 1285.2.) The petition or response must set forth (1) the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate, (2) the names of the arbitrators, and (3) the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, or attach a copy. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1285.4, 1285.6.) The court must either confirm the award as made, correct the award and confirm it as corrected, vacate the award, or dismiss the proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.) The Petition does not include a copy of the agreement to arbitrate. Arbitration of attorney-client fee disputes is voluntary for a client and is only mandatory for an attorney when commenced by the client. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6200, subd. (c).) This arbitration was commenced by Petitioner, the attorney/firm in the underlying dispute, so arbitration was not statutorily mandated. (See Petition Ex. 6(c) [Arbitration Award] at p. 1.) [T]he party seeking to enforce an award must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a valid arbitration contract exists. The court may not confirm an award without first finding the parties agreed in writing to arbitrate their dispute, unless a judicial determination of the issue has already been made (e.g., by a court considering a petition to compel arbitration). The burden upon the awards proponent to prove the existence of a valid agreement, and the courts duty to determine the issue, are reflected in the statutory requirement that the proponent recite or attach the contract. ( Toal v. Tardif (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1208, 1220.) Accordingly, the Hearing on Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award is CONTINUED to August 29, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. Petitioner is ORDERED to file a copy of the agreement to arbitrate no later than five court days before the continued hearing. Moving party to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar. Dated this 9th day of July 2024 Hon. Thomas D. Long Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: 24STCP01253 Hearing Date: July 9, 2024 Dept: 50 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Department 50 DANIELLE PALIVOS , Petitioner, vs. STATE FARM INSURANCE CO , et al. Respondents. Case No.: 24STCP01253 Hearing Date: July 9, 2024 Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m. [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND APPOINTMENT OF AN NEUTRAL ARBITRATOR Background On April 18, 2024, Petitioner Danielle Palivos (Petitioner) filed a Petition to Compel Arbitration and for Appointment of a Neutral Arbitrator against Respondent State Farm Insurance Co. in this action. Petitioner now seeks an order compelling arbitration and for appointment of a neutral [sic]& The petition is unopposed. Discussion In support of the petition, Petitioner cites to Insurance Code section 11580.2 . The Court notes that Insurance Code section 11580.2 requires insurers to provide coverage for bodily injury or wrongful death caused by uninsured motorists. Subdivision (f) of this statute provides that if the insurer and the insured cannot agree whether the insured is legally entitled to recover damages from an uninsured motorist and the amount of such damages, those issues shall be determined by arbitration. ( Bouton v. USAA Casualty Ins. Co. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1190, 1193 .) Petitioner cites to Insurance Code section 11580.2, subdivision (f) , which provides in part as follows: The policy or an endorsement added thereto shall provide that the determination as to whether the insured shall be legally entitled to recover damages, and if so entitled, the amount thereof, shall be made by agreement between the insured and the insurer or, in the event of disagreement, by arbitration. The arbitration shall be conducted by a single neutral arbitrator. An award or a judgment confirming an award shall not be conclusive on any party in any action or proceeding between (i) the insured, his or her insurer, his or her legal representative, or his or her heirs and (ii) the uninsured motorist to recover damages arising out of the accident upon which the award is based. If the insured has or may have rights to benefits, other than nonoccupational disability benefits, under any workers compensation law, the arbitrator shall not proceed with the arbitration until the insureds physical condition is stationary and ratable. In those cases in which the insured claims a permanent disability, the claims shall, unless good cause be shown, be adjudicated by award or settled by compromise and release before the arbitration may proceed. Any demand or petition for arbitration shall contain a declaration, under penalty of perjury, stating whether (i) the insured has a workers compensation claim; (ii) the claim has proceeded to findings and award or settlement on all issues reasonably contemplated to be determined in that claim; and (iii) if not, what reasons amounting to good cause are grounds for the arbitration to proceed immediately. The arbitration shall be deemed to be a proceeding and the hearing before the arbitrator shall be deemed to be the trial of an issue therein for purposes of issuance of a subpoena by an attorney of a party to the arbitration under Section 1985 of the Code of Civil Procedure& (Emphasis added.) In the instant petition, Petitioner asserts that [t]he underinsured motorist endorsement in respondents policy states that Petitioner is required to File [sic] Petition to Compel Appointment of an Arbitrator and to Compel Arbitration in accordance with CCP 51280 et. seq . (Petition at p. 6:22-26.) However, Petitioner does not appear to provide any evidence in support of this assertion. Petitioner does not provide evidence of Petitioners policy, or any arbitration provision in any such policy. ( See Weinstein Declaration.) In Bouton v. USAA Casualty Ins. Co. , supra , 43 Cal.4th at page 1199 , the California Supreme Court cited to Freeman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1975) 14 Cal.3d 473 , stating that in that case, the Court noted that Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 requires a court to examine an arbitration agreement to determine whether there is a duty to arbitrate the controversy. ( Freeman, supra, 14 Cal.3d at p. 480 .) We concluded that section 11580.2, subdivision (f) requires the parties to arbitrate the narrow issues of whether the insured is entitled to recover damages from the uninsured or underinsured motorist, and if so, the amount of those damages. ( Freeman, supra, 14 Cal.3d at p. 480 .) We acknowledged the strong public policy favoring arbitration, but stated that there is no policy compelling persons to accept arbitration of controversies which they have not agreed to arbitrate and which no statute has made arbitrable. (Internal quotations omitted.) In addition, Petitioner relies on Insurance Code section 11580.2, subdivision (f) , which, as set forth above, provides in part that [a]ny demand or petition for arbitration shall contain a declaration, under penalty of perjury, stating whether (i) the insured has a workers compensation claim; (ii) the claim has proceeded to findings and award or settlement on all issues reasonably contemplated to be determined in that claim; and (iii) if not, what reasons amounting to good cause are grounds for the arbitration to proceed immediately. ( Ins. Code, § 11580.2, subd. (f) .) It does not appear that Petitioner has provided any of this information. Lastly, Petitioner requests that the Court appoint a neutral arbitrator. (Petition at p. 7:2.) However, Petitioner does not appear to cite any legal authority in support of such request. In light of the foregoing, the Court does not find that Petitioner has demonstrated good cause for the Court to compel arbitration and appoint a neutral arbitrator. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, Petitioners petition is denied without prejudice. Petitioner is ordered to provide notice of this ruling. DATED: July 9, 2024 ________________________________ Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

Case Number: 24STCP01531 Hearing Date: July 11, 2024 Dept: 52 Petitioners 4500 Buck Owens Blvd., LP, Rao Ramanchandrarao Yalamanchili, and Positive Investments, Inc.s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award Petitioners 4500 Buck Owens Blvd., LP, Rao Ramanchandrarao Yalamanchili, and Positive Investments, Inc. petition the court to confirm an arbitration award against respondents Brooklyns Barbecue 2, LLC and Vision Housing Venture Fund I LLC. Code of Civil Procedure section 1286 provides, If a petition or response under the California Arbitration Act is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made & unless in accordance with this chapter it corrects the award and confirms it as corrected, vacates the award or dismisses the proceedings. Service of Petition Petitioner duly served and filed this petition on respondents. A copy of the petition and a written notice of the time and place of the hearing thereof and any other papers upon which the petition is based shall be served in the manner provided in the arbitration agreement for the service of such petition and notice. (CCP § 1290.4(a).) If the agreement does not provide for a manner of service, service shall be made in the manner provided by law for the services of summons in an action. ( Id. , subd. (b)(1).) The arbitration agreement does not include a valid provision for service of petitions or other notice. The agreement including the arbitration provision is a restaurant kitchen lease agreement between petitioner 4500 Buck Owens Blvd., LP and Brooklyns Barbecue 2 LLC. (Petition, Ex. A.) Its provision for notice from lessor to lessee is incomplete. It states, Until further written notice to Lessor, all notices from Lessor to Lessee shall be served or sent to Lessee at the following address: TENANT NAME AND ADDRESS. ( Id. , p. 5, ¶ 16.) Petitioner therefore was required to serve the petition and notice of the hearing on respondents in the manner provided by law for service of summons. Petitioners filed adequate proof of service on both respondents in the manner provided by law for service of summons. They show proper service of the petition on respondent Brooklyns Barbecue 2 LLC. Summons or other process against a limited liability company may be served by delivering a copy thereof to a manager, member, officer, or person having charge of its assets or, if none of these persons can be found, to any agent upon whom process might be served at the time of dissolution. (Corp. Code, § 17707.07(b).) Records of the California Secretary of State show Brooklyns Barbecue 2 LLC filed a certificate of cancellation on March 1, 2024. Those records further show, at the time of dissolution, the registered agent for service of process was Craig Troxler at 3535 Tapo St., Simi Valley, CA 93063. The arbitration award also indicates he was a 50% member of the LLC. (Petition, Ex. B, p. 10.) Petitioners filed proof of substituted service of the petition on Craig Troxler at the address registered with the Secretary of State and a declaration of subsequent mailing. Petitioners also filed proof of personal service on Troxler of the notice of hearing on the petition and the proposed order. Petitioners show proper service of the petition on respondent Vision Housing Venture Fund I LLC. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 416.30, a summons may be served via notice and acknowledgment of receipt of summons. Petitioners filed a notice of acknowledgment of receipt of this petition on Judicial Council Form POS-015 signed by a representative of respondent Vision Housing Venture Fund I LLC, dated May 21, 2024. Merits of Petition The petition complies with all requirements under Code of Civil Procedure section 1285.4. It includes: (a) a copy of the arbitration agreement (Ex. A), (b) the name of the arbitrator, Hon. Gerald Rosenberg (Ret.), and (c) a copy of the award (Ex. B). Neither respondent filed a response to the petition. The allegations of a petition are deemed to be admitted by a respondent duly served therewith unless a response is duly served and filed. (CCP § 1290.) Respondents therefore admit the petitions allegations. The court must confirm the award as made (CCP § 1286) and enter judgment in conformity with it (CCP § 1287.4). Disposition Petitioners 4500 Buck Owens Blvd., LP, Rao Ramanchandrarao Yalamanchili, and Positive Investments, Inc.s petition to confirm arbitration award is granted. The final award of: (a) $228,355.23 in attorney fees and costs to petitioners 4500 Buck Owens Blvd., LP, Rao Ramanchandrarao Yalamanchili, and Positive Investments, Inc.; and (b) $7,132.79 in damages and $239,413.87 in attorney fees and costs to respondent Vision Housing Venture Fund I LLC , issued by arbitrator Hon. Gerald Rosenberg (Ret.) is hereby confirmed . Instead of signing petitioners proposed order, the court will require petitioners to submit a proposed judgment stating the amount awarded to each party. Petitioners shall submit a proposed judgment for the courts signature forthwith. The court hereby sets an order to show cause re: entry of judgment for August 23, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.

Case Number: 24STCP00687 Hearing Date: July 9, 2024 Dept: 26 The High Way, LLC v. Mulqueeney, et al. PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD (CCP § 1285, et seq.) TENTATIVE RULING: The High Way, LLCs Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 8, 2024 AT 8:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. BY SEPTEMBER 10, 2024, PETITIONER IS TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE OF THE PETITION AND NOTICE OF HEARING THAT CONFORMS TO THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN THE PETITION BEING DENIED. ANALYSIS: On March 5, 2024, Petitioner The High Way, LLC (Petitioner) filed the instant Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (the Petition) against Respondent Michael Connor Mulqueeney (Respondent). No proof of service of, nor opposition to, the Petition has been filed to date. Legal Standard 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 respondent all parties to the arbitration and may name as respondents any other persons bound by the arbitration award. ( Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.) 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 proceeding. ( Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.) A response to a Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award that seeks to vacate or correct the award must be served and filed no later than 100 days after the date of the service of a signed copy of the award on the respondent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1288.2.) Discussion Code of Civil Procedure, section 1290.4 requires that the Petition and Notice of Hearing be served on Respondent in the manner provided in the arbitration agreement for the service of such petition and notice or [i]f the arbitration agreement does not provide the manner in which such service shall be made . . . [s]ervice within this State shall be made in the manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4, subds. (a), (b).) No proof of service of the Petition and Notice of Hearing has been filed. As the arbitration agreement does not provide for the manner of service of the Petition and Notice of Hearing, those papers must be served in the manner of service for a summons. (Pet., Attachment 4(b).) Therefore, the Court cannot find that the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4 are satisfied. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, Petitioner The High Way, LLCs Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 8, 2024 AT 8:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. BY SEPTEMBER 10, 2024, PETITIONER IS TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE OF THE PETITION AND NOTICE OF HEARING THAT CONFORMS TO THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN THE PETITION BEING DENIED. Petitioner to give notice.

Case Number: 24STCP01101 Hearing Date: July 12, 2024 Dept: 71 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles DEPARTMENT 71 TENTATIVE RULING BLUE BEAR WASTE SERVICES, LLC, vs. BOND ENTERPRISES, INC. Case No.: 24STCP01101 Hearing Date: July 12, 2024 Petitioner Blue Bear Waste Services, LLCs petition to confirm the contractual arbitration award is granted. Petitioner is awarded the award against Respondent in the principal amount of $993,419.48, post-judgment interest at 8% per annum from March 25, 2024 ($23,733.20), attorneys fees in the amount of $242,046.00, costs in the amount of $108,783.27, and administrative fees in the amount of $67,887.50, for the total amount of $1,435,869.45, less any amounts of the award Respondent has already paid to Petitioner prior to this ruling. Petitioner Blue Bear Waste Services, LLCs demurrer to Defendant Bond Enterprises, Inc.s Answer is sustained without leave to amend. Petitioner Blue Bear Waste Services, LLC (Blue Bear) (Petitioner) petitions this Court to confirm the contractual arbitration award issued in its favor and against Respondent Bond Enterprises, Inc., dba Bond Consulting Services (Bond) (Respondent). ( See Petition, pg. 1.) Petitioner demurs to Respondents Answer to Petitioners Petition on the basis Respondents Answer is untimely and fails to state any viable defenses which Respondent is permitted to raise by the California Arbitration Act. (Notice Demurrer, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §§430.20, 431.30, 1280-1288.8.) Background This dispute arises from Respondents agreement to develop software for Petitioner in exchange for payment, subject to certain terms and conditions of the agreement. ( See Petition ¶5.) Respondent did not develop the software it agreed to develop, did not notify Petitioner of problems that arise as required by the agreement, and did not provide a source code to the Petitioner as agreed. ( See Petition ¶5.) Petitioner and Respondent agreed to binding arbitration on January 31, 2022 (Agreement). (Petition ¶¶4(a), (c); Exh. A at ¶32.) The Arbitration hearing occurred from January 9 to 12, 2024, before Arbitrator Janice L. Sperow, AAA, in a remote hearing from Fresno, California. (Petition ¶¶6-7.) Arbitrator Sperow issued the Final Arbitration Award on March 25, 2024. (Petition ¶8; Attachment 8c.) Petitioner filed the instant petition to confirm the arbitration award on April 8, 2024. Respondent filed an opposition on July 5, 2024. Petitioner filed the instant demurrer on May 21, 2024. Respondent filed its opposition on July 1, 2024. Petitioner filed its reply on July 5, 2024. A. Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award Arbitration Award The party seeking judicial enforcement of a private arbitration award has the burden of proving the award as well as the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. ( Toal v. Tardif (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1208, 1223 [holding burden not met by submitting copy of contract with arbitration provision signed by partys attorney rather than by party personally].) The specific grounds upon which an arbitrators award may be vacated are set forth in C.C.P. §1286.2. Except for such grounds, arbitration awards are immune from judicial review. ( See Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 10-11 [limiting grounds for judicial review effectuates the parties agreement that the award be final and also reflects that arbitrators need not follow the law and may base their decisions on broad principles of justice and equity . . . paths neither marked nor traceable by judicial review].) Generally, errors of law committed by the arbitrator are not grounds for challenging the arbitration award. ( Id. at pg. 11.) The sufficiency of evidence to support the award is immaterial and courts cannot review the same. ( See Morris v. Zuckerman (1968) 69 Cal.2d. 686, 691.) Courts cannot pass upon the validity of the arbitrators reasoning and cannot substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator. ( See Moncharsh , 3 Cal.4th at pg. 11.) Petitioner has met its burden to prove the arbitration award and the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. ( Petition ¶¶4(a), (c); Attachments 4(b) at ¶7; Petition ¶8(c), Attachment 8c.) The final arbitration award awards the following: 1. For claimant on the First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract in the amount of $ 188,682.75 ; 1. For claimant on the First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract based on Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in the amount already stated; 2. For claimant on the Second Cause of Action for Negligence in the amount of $ 688,480.24 based upon respondents professional negligence and in the amount already stated; 3. The Arbitrator dismisses with prejudice claimants Second Cause of Action for Negligence as a matter of law under the Economic Loss Rule to the extent claimant based it upon economic losses stemming from respondents failure to satisfy its contractual duties; 4. For claimant on the Third Cause of Action for Negligent Misrepresentation in the amounts already stated; 5. For respondent on the Third Cause of Action for Negligent Misrepresentation to the extent claimant based its claim upon respondents predictions, statements, and opinions regarding future events; 6. The Arbitrator dismisses with prejudice claimants Third Cause of Action for Negligent Misrepresentation as a matter of law under the Economic Loss Rule to the extent claimant based its claim upon economic losses caused by respondents misrepresentations stemming from its contractual duties; 7. For claimant on the Fourth Cause of Action for Fraudulent Misrepresentation in the amount of $ 116,256.49 and the amounts already stated based upon respondents misrepresentations stemming from independent duties; 8. For respondent on the Fourth Cause of Action for Fraudulent Misrepresentation to the extent claimant based its claim upon respondents predictions, statement, and opinions regarding future events; 9. The Arbitrator dismisses with prejudice claimants Fourth Cause of Action for Fraudulent Misrepresentation as a matter of law under the Economic Loss Rule to the extent claimant based its claim upon economic losses caused by respondents misrepresentations stemming from its contractual duties; 10. For respondent on claimants Fifth Cause of Action for Fraudulent Nondisclosure; 11. For respondent on claimants Sixth Cause of Action for Fraudulent Concealment; 12. For claimant on the Seventh Cause of Action for Conversion in the amounts already stated; 13. For respondent on the Eighth Cause of Action for Civil Theft; 14. For claimant on Ninth Cause of Action for Misappropriation of Trade Secrets in the amounts already stated; 15. For claimant on its request for attorney fees in the amount of $242,046.00 16. For claimant on its request for sanctions in an amount subsumed by claimants attorney fees; 17. For claimant on its request for costs in the amount of $108,783.27; 18. For claimant on its request for pre-judgment interest on its First Cause of Action in an amount already subsumed by claimants breach of contract damages 19. For respondent on claimants request for pre-judgment interest on claimants remaining claims; 20. For respondent on claimants request for punitive damages; 21. For respondent on the request for civil penalties and treble damages; 22. For claimant on its request for post-award interest at 8% per annum as to the entire amount of the Final Award from the date of the Final Award; and 23. For claimant on claimants request for injunctive relief as modified and set forth above. Claimant is the prevailing party in this matter. The administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association totaling $16,475.00 shall be borne $16,475.00 by Bond Enterprises, Inc. dba Bond Consulting Service, and the compensation and expenses of the Arbitrator totaling $103,125.00 shall be borne $103,125.00 by Bond Enterprises, Inc. dba Bond Consulting Service. Therefore, Bond Enterprises, Inc. dba Bond Consulting Service must pay Blue Bear Waste Service, LLC, an amount of $67,887.50. This Final Award amends and supersedes the Second Interim Award dated March 2, 2024, and the initial Interim Award dated January 24, 2024, in their entirety. This Final Award is in full settlement of all claims submitted in this arbitration. All claims not expressly granted herein are hereby denied. This final award resolves all issues between all parties and represents the final adjudication of all claims and defenses between the parties. (Petition, Attachment 8(c) at pgs. 102-103.) The Court determines the Petition is proper. Accordingly, the Court confirms the award and enters judgment according to it. Petitioner is awarded the award against Respondent in the amount of $ 993,419.48 , post-judgment interest at 8% per annum from March 25, 2024 ($23,733.20), attorneys fees in the amount of $ 242,046.00 , costs in the amount of $ 108,783.27 , and administrative fees in the amount of $ 67,887.50 , for the total amount of $1,435,869.45 less any amounts of the award Respondent has already paid to Petitioner prior to this ruling. Conclusion Petitioners petition to confirm the Arbitration Award is granted. Petitioner is awarded the award against Respondent in the principal amount of $993,419.48, post-judgment interest at 8% per annum from March 25, 2024 ($23,733.20), attorneys fees in the amount of $242,046.00, costs in the amount of $108,783.27, and administrative fees in the amount of $67,887.50, for the total amount of $1,435,869.45, less any amounts of the award Respondent has already paid to Petitioner prior to this ruling. Moving Party to give notice. B. Demurrer to Respondents Answer Meet and Confer Before filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (C.C.P. §430.41(a), emphasis added.) A declaration must be filed with a demurrer regarding the results of the meet and confer process. (C.C.P. §430.41(a)(3).) Petitioners counsel declares he attempted to meet and confer telephonically with Defendants counsel on May 20, 2024, and there was no answer, so he left a voicemail indicating Petitioners intent to file the instant demurrer. ( Decl. of Cooledge ¶2.) Petitioners counsel declares he has not heard back from Respondents counsel. (Decl. of Cooledge ¶2.) Petitioners counsels declaration is sufficient under C.C.P. §430.41(a). Accordingly, the Court will consider the instant demurrer. Summary of Demurrer Petitioner demurs to Respondents Answer to the Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award on the basis the Answer is untimely and fails to state any viable defenses that Respondent can raise under the California Arbitration Act. (Notice of Demurrer, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§430.20, 431.30, 1280-1288.8.) Legal Standard [A] demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint. ( Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.) A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. ( See Donabedian v. Mercury Insurance Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 [in ruling on a demurrer, a court may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not accepted for the truth of their contents].) A demurrer to an answer may be brought on any of the following grounds: (a) the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense ; (b) the answer is uncertain, meaning ambiguous and unintelligible; or (c) where the answer pleads a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the answer whether the contract is written or oral. (C.C.P. §430.20.) Failure to State a Claim Entire Answer Petitioner demurs to Respondents Answer on the basis the Answer does not allege any facts in support of most of its purported defenses, and only alleges that Petitioner received a partial payment. A petition to confirm an arbitration award can only be challenged by a petition to vacate or correct an arbitration award. (C.C.P. §1285.2.) C.C.P. §1286.2 sets forth the grounds on which an arbitration award may be challenged. Here, Respondents Answer is an inappropriate procedural mechanism to challenge Petitioners petition. Further, Respondents Answer does not challenge Petitioners petition on the grounds that the arbitration award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means or corruption in any of the arbitrators; that the arbitrator exceeded her powers; or that the arbitrator failed to timely disclose grounds for disqualification. (C.C.P. §1286.2.) Accordingly, Respondents Answer fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense and is sustained without leave to amend. Conclusion Petitioners demurrer to Respondents Answer is sustained without leave to amend. Moving Party to give notice. Dated: July _____, 2024 Hon. Daniel M. Crowley Judge of the Superior Court