Peter Hacker v. Four Jays Music Company, et al

Case Number

19CV04052

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 05/22/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Petition To Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff and Respondent Peter Hacker: Roger N. Behle, Jr., Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP

For Defendant and Respondent Four Jays Music Company and Defendant Julia Riva: David Alden Erikson, Antoinette Waller, S. Ryan Patterson, Erikson Law Group

RULING

For all reasons discussed herein, the petition of Plaintiff to confirm contractual arbitration award is granted.  

Background

Plaintiff Peter Hacker (Hacker) filed the present action on August 1, 2019, alleging eight causes of action against Defendants Four Jays Music Company (the Company) and Julia Riva (Riva): (1) misappropriation of royalties/conversion; (2) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; (3) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage; (4) slander of title; (5) breach of fiduciary duty; (6) breach of written contract; (7) financial elder abuse; and (8) accounting. As alleged in the complaint:

Hacker is one of three surviving grandchildren of musical composer Harry Warren (Warren) and a recipient to numerous rights and revenues derived from the musical compositions of Warren. Riva is also one of the three living grandchildren of Warren and a director, shareholder, President, and Chief Financial Officer of the Company. The Company’s principal business is music publishing primarily having to do with the musical compositions of Warren. The Company and Riva (collectively, Defendants) have collected revenue from Warren’s compositions including from the British Reversionary Territories, and money for Hacker’s share to which he is entitled, but have failed to fulfill their obligation to forward Hacker’s share to him and have wrongfully disputed Hacker’s claims to his rights in the compositions of Warren.

On September 19, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for an order compelling the arbitration of all claims brought by Hacker and staying the action pending arbitration. Alternatively, Defendants requested that this action be transferred to the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. The motion of Defendants to compel arbitration was opposed by Hacker.

On October 15, 2019, the Court entered a Minute Order granting the motion to compel arbitration of Defendants and staying the present action pending the completion of arbitration. The Court declined to award attorneys’ fees pursuant to a settlement agreement of the parties because no prevailing party had yet been determined.

On April 16, 2024, following the completion of the arbitration, Hacker filed a petition to confirm the contractual arbitration award against the Company. As stated in the petition, arbitration hearings were conducted on November 29, November 30, and December 1, 2022. (Petition, ¶ 7(a).) The arbitration award was made on March 4, 2024, which requires the Company to pay to Hacker the aggregate sum of $200,000 consisting of $32,416.40 in damages, $127,989.69 in recoverable costs, $39,593.91 in attorney’s fees, and $0 in pre-judgment interest. (Petition, ¶ 8 (b)(1) & Attachment 8(c) [Section F].) Hacker requests that the Court confirm the award and enter judgment accordingly.

Neither the Company nor Riva have filed oppositions to the present petition.

Analysis

“Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the Court to confirm, correct or vacate the award.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.) Upon the proper service and filing of a petition to confirm an arbitration award, “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.)

“Under section 1286, the superior Court has only four options when a petition to confirm or vacate an arbitration award is filed. The superior Court may (1) confirm the award as made; (2) correct the award and confirm it as corrected; (3) vacate the award; or (4) dismiss the proceeding.” (Kelly Sutherlin McLeod Architecture, Inc. v. Schneickert (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 519, 527-528.) If the Court 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, original italics.)

If the Court confirms the arbitration award, judgment must be entered in conformity with the award. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1287.4.) Further, “[t]he Court shall dismiss the proceeding … as to any person named as a respondent if the Court determines that such person was not bound by the arbitration award and was not a party to the arbitration.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1287.2.)

A petition to confirm an arbitration award must be served and filed “at least 10 days after service of the signed copy of the award upon the petitioner” but “not later than four years after the date of service of a signed copy of the award on the petitioner.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1288 & 1288.4.) Any response to the petition must be filed and served within 10 days after service of the petition unless a longer time is agreed to by the parties or approved by the Court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.6; Taheri Law Group, A.P.C. v. Sorokurs (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 956, 960 (Taheri).) If a response to a petition to confirm an arbitration award is not served and filed within the 10 day statutory period, the factual allegations of the petition are deemed admitted by the respondent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290; see also Taheri, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at pp. 960-962 [also noting that legal conclusions are not deemed admitted].)

In addition, the petition must “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.) The petition must set forth “the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate unless the petitioner denies the existence of such an agreement”, “the names of the arbitrators”, and set forth or attach either the award or a copy and the written opinion of the arbitrator, if any. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4, subds. (a)-(c).)

The present petition was filed within the statutory time frames further discussed above and is timely. The name of the arbitrator, Bruce Isaacs of Signature Resolution, is sufficiently identified in the petition. Attached to the petition is a copy of a “Final Arbitration Award – Phase 1 And Phase 2” (the award) which includes the written opinion of the arbitrator. The award appears to determine all of the questions submitted to the arbitrator of which a decision was necessary to determine the controversy. The petition names or otherwise sufficiently identifies all parties to the arbitration and appears to have been duly served on the Company and Riva. No party has filed an opposition to the petition.

For all reasons discussed above, as the present unopposed petition is procedurally and substantively appropriate, the Court will grant the petition and confirm the award as made by the arbitrator. The Court has reviewed the proposed order submitted by Hacker and intends to sign it.