Case Number: 24STCP01812 Hearing Date: July 12, 2024 Dept: 53 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Central District Department 53 grant | shenon, a professional law corporation ; Petitioner, vs. lawrence deutsch , et al.; Respondents. Case No.: 24STCP01812 Hearing Date: July 12, 2024 Time: 10:00 a.m. [tentative] Order RE: petition to confirm arbitration award MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Grant | Shenon, a Professional Law Corporation RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this petition. No opposition papers were filed. DISCUSSION Petitioner Grant | Shenon, a Professional Law Corporation (Petitioner) moves the court for an order confirming the final arbitration award issued by arbitrators Michael J. Zuckerman, Setrak Attarian, and Sarkis Jacob Babachanian, in the arbitration between Petitioner and respondents Lawrence Deutsch and Jacob Deutsch (Respondents). The court finds that Petitioner has not properly served Respondents with this petition and the supporting papers. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4, subd. (b)(1).) Section 1290.4, subdivision (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure . . . set[s] forth service requirements for a petition under the contractual arbitration law[,] including a petition to confirm, correct, or vacate an arbitration award. ( Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 928.) This statute provides that service shall be made in the manner provided in the arbitration agreement for the service of such petition and notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4, subd. (a).) If the arbitration agreement does not provide for the manner of such service, and if the person upon whom service is to be made has not previously appeared in the proceeding, then [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, subd. (b)(1).) Respondents have not yet appeared in this action and appear to reside in California. (Grant Decl., Ex. B, Arbitration Award, p. 3 [proof of service on Respondents at California address].) Moreover, Petitioner did not identify a provision in the parties arbitration agreement setting forth the manner of service of a petition to confirm an arbitration award. [1] Thus, Petitioner was required to serve Respondents with this petition and the notice of hearing on the petition in the manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4, subd. (b)(1).) A summons may be served by personal delivery of a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.10.) If the summons and complaint cannot, with reasonable diligence, be personally delivered to the person to be served, a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the persons dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address . . . in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of his or her office, place of business, or usual mailing address . . . at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and of the complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b).) Petitioner attached a proof of service to the petition stating that Respondents were served with its Notice of Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award and the proposed order by mail and by email. (Pet., pp. 49-50.) Petitioner did not file any other proofs of service establishing service on Respondents of the petition and the notice of the hearing thereon. Thus, the court finds that Petitioner has not served Respondents with the petition and the notice of hearing on the petition in the manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action because Petitioner did not serve Respondents (1) by personal service, or (2) by substituted service. ( Ibid .; Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4, subd. (b)(1).) The court therefore denies Petitioners petition to confirm the arbitration award, without prejudice to Petitioners filing an amended petition and serving Respondents with the amended petition in the same manner as service of summons. ORDER The court denies petitioner Grant | Shenon, a Professional Law Corporations petition to confirm arbitration award, without prejudice. The court orders petitioner Grant | Shenon, a Professional Law Corporation to give notice of this ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: July 12, 2024 _____________________________ Robert B. Broadbelt III Judge of the Superior Court [1] The court notes that the arbitration provision in the parties Litigation Enforcement Agreement states that, [i]f either party files a Petition to Compel Arbitration with the Superior Court, service of the Petition and Notice of Hearing on said Petition shall be allowed by first-class mail, postage prepaid. (Grant Decl., Ex. A, Litigation Enforcement Agreement, p. 6, § 8, subd. (b).) However, this provision does not set forth the manner of service of a petition to confirm an arbitration award, and therefore does not permit service by first-class mail, postage prepaid of such petition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4, subd. (a) [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] [emphasis added].)

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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Tentative Ruling 2024CUOE020845: REYES PALACIOS AHUATZI vs SATICOY BERRY FARMS INC 07/11/2024 in Department 21 Petition to Compel Arbitration for Saticoy Berry Farms Inc The morning calendar in courtroom 21 will normally begin between 8:30 and 8:45 a.m. Please arrive at the courtroom no later than 8:30 a.m. The door will be opened before the calendar is called. The Court allows appearances by CourtCall but is not equipped for Zoom. If appearing by CourtCall, call in no later than 8:15 a.m. If you intend to appear by CourtCall, you must make arrangements with CourtCall by 4:00 p.m. the day before your scheduled hearing. Requests for approval of a CourtCall appearance made on the morning of the hearing will not be granted. No exceptions will be made. With respect to the tentative ruling below, no notice of intent to appear is required. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling you can fax notice to Judge Riley's secretary, Ms. Sedillos at 805-289-8705, stating that you submit on the tentative. You may also email the Court at: Courtroom21@ventura.courts.ca.gov with all counsel copied on the email. Do not call in lieu of sending a fax or email. If you submit on the tentative without appearing and the opposing party appears, the hearing will be conducted in your absence. If you are the moving party and do not communicate to the Court that you submit on the tentative or you do not appear at the hearing, the Court may deny your motion irrespective of the tentative. Unless stated otherwise at the hearing, if a formal order is not signed at the hearing, the prevailing party shall prepare a proposed order and comply with CRC 3.1312 subdivisions (a), (b), (d) and (e). The signed order shall be served on all parties and a proof of service filed with the court. A "notice of ruling" in lieu of this procedure is not authorized. Tentative Ruling The Court DENIES the motion and joinder therein. The court declines to rule on plaintiff’s evidentiary objections as the declarations submitted by defendant are not relevant to the resolution of this matter. The post-Viking rule is as follows: “arbitration agreements between employers and employees that require arbitration of the individual portion of a PAGA claim are enforceable, but arbitration agreements that require arbitration (or waiver) of the representative portion of a PAGA claim are not enforceable.” Piplack v. In-N-Out Burgers (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1281, 1288. In addition, our appellate court has held “that an employee who does not bring an individual claim against her employer may nevertheless bring a PAGA action for herself and other employees of the company.” Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting, Inc. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 533, 536, as modified (Apr. 18, 2024). 2024CUOE020845: REYES PALACIOS AHUATZI vs SATICOY BERRY FARMS INC Plaintiff states that he is doing this and nothing else. He has brought the current matter in a representative capacity only. If defendant believes that the plaintiff’s complaint does more than simply assert a representative PAGA claim, defendants are free to bring a motion to strike any portion of the complaint they deem contrary to the position plaintiff has taken in his opposition. Analysis “[T]he United States Supreme Court has identified ‘three categories of activity that Congress may regulate under the commerce power: (1) the channels of interstate commerce, (2) the instrumentalities of interstate commerce and persons or things in interstate commerce, and (3) those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce.’” Shepard v. Edward Mackay Enterprises, Inc. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1092, 1097, citing United States v. Lopez (1995) 514 U.S. 549, 558-559).) “The party asserting FAA preemption bears the burden to present evidence establishing a contract with the arbitration provision affects one of these three categories of activity, and failure to do so renders the FAA inapplicable.” (Id.; see Giuliano v. Inland Empire Personnel, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284-1288 [subjective intent of parties to contract not dispositive factor as to whether FAA governs].) The FAA is not applicable to this motion. “On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party to the agreement refuses to arbitrate that controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, unless it determines that: (a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or (b) Grounds exist for rescission of the agreement. (c) A party to the arbitration agreement is also a party to a pending court action or special proceeding with a third party, arising out of the same transaction or series of related transactions and there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2). A petition to compel arbitration or to stay proceedings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.2 and 1281.4 must state, in addition to other required allegations, the provisions of the written agreement and the paragraph that provides for arbitration. The provisions must be stated verbatim or a copy must be attached to the petition and incorporated by reference. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1330). “The petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence, and a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense. [Citation]. In these summary proceedings, the trial court sits as a trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, as well as oral testimony received at the court's discretion, to reach 2024CUOE020845: REYES PALACIOS AHUATZI vs SATICOY BERRY FARMS INC a final determination. [Citation].” (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 972). For purposes of a petition to compel arbitration, petitioner meets his initial burden by simply setting forth the terms of the agreement in the petition or by attaching a copy of it thereto. Section 1281.2 does not require a petitioner to introduce the agreement to arbitrate into evidence, petitioner must only convince the court that the agreement exists. (Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218-19). Once the petitioner does that, the burden shifts to respondents to prove the agreement should not be enforced. (Id.) Defendant has set forth the terms of the Agreement in its moving papers. It need do no more. It has met its initial burden, particularly since plaintiff does not challenge the existence of the arbitration agreement or his signing of it. The declarations that defendant has submitted in support of its motion are unnecessary and plaintiff’s evidentiary objections thereto are irrelevant. The burden shifts to plaintiff to justify why the arbitration agreement should not be enforced. Plaintiff claims that he is not asserting any individual claim in this case and has brought the action solely in a representative capacity. Defendants do not dispute that non-individual PAGA claims are not subject to arbitration. Instead, they argue that plaintiff is indeed asserting individual PAGA claims. Our appellate court has held “that an employee who does not bring an individual claim against her employer may nevertheless bring a PAGA action for herself and other employees of the company.” Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting, Inc. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 533, 536 [320 Cal.Rptr.3d 326, 327], as modified (Apr. 18, 2024). This is what plaintiff claims he is doing and nothing else.

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

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: 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: 23STCP02282 Hearing Date: July 12, 2024 Dept: 61 MARK GOMEZ, et al. vs GEORQE PANOUSSIS TENTATIVE Petitioners Mark Gomez and Gomez Law, APCs Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is DENIED. Respondent to provide notice. DISCUSSION I. MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD Petitioners Mark Gomez and Gomez Law, APC (Petitioners) move to confirm an arbitration award entered against Respondent George Panoussis (Respondent) on May 31, 2023, in the amount of $34,257.06. Petitioners seek entry of judgment in this amount against Respondent. (Motion at p. 3.) A. CONTENTS OF THE PETITION The award is one for attorney fee arbitration under Business & Professions Code § 6200. If no action has been filed in court on such an award, the award may be confirmed, corrected, or vacated by petition to the court having jurisdiction over the amount of the arbitration award, but otherwise in the same manner as provided in Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 1285) of Title 9 of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6203, subd. (b).) 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 must include (a) the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate unless the petitioner denies the existence of such an agreement, (b) the names of the arbitrators, and (c) a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4.) The petition does not comply with the above statute because it does not include the substance of or an attached agreement to arbitrate. The petition contains the arbitration award and identifies the parties and arbitrators, and further alleges that after the fee dispute arose, the parties agreed in writing to be bound by arbitration, pursuant to Business & Professions Code § 6204, subd. (a). (Petition at p. 2.) However, no such agreement is included with the petition. The petition is therefore DENIED.

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.

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