James H Bell et al vs WCCI LLC et al

Case Number

20CV02061

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 11/14/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Petition: Confirm Arbitration

Tentative Ruling

For all reasons discussed herein, the petition of plaintiffs to confirm contractual arbitration award is granted. Plaintiffs shall, on or before November 21, 2025, serve and file proof of service of notice of the court’s ruling herein on all parties to this action.

Background:

On June 12, 2020, plaintiffs James H. Bell and Karen M. Bell (collectively, plaintiffs) filed a complaint against defendants WCCI, LLC (WCCI), Edward Corpus Reyes (Edward), Alfred Talahuron (Talahuron), and Mary Elizabeth Reyes (Mary Elizabeth) (collectively, defendants), alleging four causes of action: (1) breach of contract (against WCCI, Edward, and Talahuron); (2) fraud-intentional misrepresentation (against all defendants); (3) fraud-negligent misrepresentation (against all defendants); and (4) financial elder abuse (against all defendants). (Note: The court refers to the parties by their first names to avoid confusion due to common surnames. No disrespect is intended.) As alleged in the complaint:

On August 15, 2018, plaintiffs employed a real estate agent to sell property located at 3091 Hidden Valley Lane in Montecito, California (the Montecito property). (Compl., ¶ 12.) Plaintiffs’ agent produced Edward and Talahuron as buyers of that property. (Ibid.) After completing several visits to the Montecito property, WCCI, Edward, and Talahuron (the WCCI defendants) entered into a purchase agreement on November 3, 2018, (the Purchase Agreement) to buy the Montecito property. (Id. at ¶ 12 & Exh. 1.) Mary Elizabeth was the real estate agent representing the WCCI defendants. (Id. at ¶ 12.)

At the time the Purchase Agreement was executed, defendants were informed that to transfer clean title, a second lien would need to be satisfied at the close of escrow which defendants ensured would be made available. (Compl., ¶ 14.) Relying on documents purporting to demonstrate the ability of the WCCI defendants to purchase the Montecito property, plaintiffs agreed to open escrow on November 15, 2018, which, at defendants’ request, was set to close by December 17. (Id. at ¶ 15.) The WCCI defendants failed to close escrow. (Id. at ¶ 16.) Though plaintiffs agreed to several extensions based on defendants’ promises to fund the purchase price for the Montecito property, defendants also failed to close escrow by the extended dates. (Id. at ¶¶ 17-21.)

On March 26, 2019, plaintiffs’ lender recorded a notice of default relating to the Montecito property. (Compl., ¶ 21.) Plaintiffs told defendants about the pending foreclosure, and defendants promised they would prevent the sale of the Montecito property and of property located at 902 E. Alamar Avenue in Santa Barbara, California (the Alamar property) to the lender. (Id. at ¶ 23.) On July 31, 2019, plaintiffs’ lender conducted a trustee’s sale and the Montecito property and Alamar property were sold at foreclosure. (Id. at ¶ 25.)

On September 16, 2020, the default of WCCI was entered as requested by plaintiffs.

On October 14, 2020, Mary Elizabeth responded to the complaint, and filed a cross-complaint against NRT West, Inc. dba Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage and Matthew D. McCormick (collectively, Coldwell Banker), alleging causes of action for indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief.

On October 19, 2020, plaintiffs filed a stipulation in which the parties agreed to set aside the default of WCCI and stay this matter pending the conclusion of arbitration between plaintiffs and the WCCI defendants. (Oct. 19, 2020, Stip.) On the same date, the court entered an order on the parties’ stipulation, setting aside the default of WCCI and staying this action. (See Oct. 19, 2020, Order.)

On November 23, 2020, Coldwell Banker filed its answer to the cross-complaint of Mary Elizabeth.

On November 2, 2021, the court signed an order on a stipulation of the parties, finding that a settlement between plaintiffs, Mary Elizabeth, and Coldwell Banker was made in good faith, dismissing the complaint with prejudice as to Mary Elizabeth, dismissing the cross-complaint of Mary Elizabeth with prejudice, and barring all future claims for contribution or indemnity against Coldwell Banker, Mary Elizabeth, and New Vision Real Estate & Investments, Inc. (Nov. 2, 2021, Order.) That order was filed on November 3, 2021.

Court records relevant to this proceeding also reflect that on May 26, 2022, plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion (the arbitration motion) requesting the court’s intervention as to the appointment of an arbitrator. The court granted the arbitration motion on August 19, 2022, in part, and continued the hearing to allow the parties to discuss the list of arbitrators proposed by the court.

On August 31, 2022, plaintiffs filed a stipulation in which the parties agreed to select Judge Frank J. Ochoa (Judge Ochoa) as the arbitrator, among other agreements. (Aug. 31, 2022, Stip.) On that same date, the court ordered this matter to arbitration, and appointed Judge Ochoa to serve as the arbitrator. (Aug. 31, 2022, Order.)

On July 22, 2025, plaintiffs filed a petition to confirm an arbitration award made on June 20, 2025, against WCCI, Edward, and Talahuron, and a notice of hearing on that petition. Plaintiffs allege that a signed copy of the arbitration award was served on June 25, 2025. (Pet., ¶ 9(b).)

As of this writing, neither Edward nor Talahuron have filed any opposition or other response to the 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. The petition shall name as respondents all parties to the arbitration and may name as respondents any other persons bound by the arbitration award.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.)

“A petition under this chapter shall:

“(a) Set forth the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate unless the petitioner denies the existence of such an agreement.

“(b) Set forth the names of the arbitrators.

“(c) Set forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4, subd. (a)-(c).)

“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.)

Attached to the petition is a copy of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate which plaintiffs assert the parties entered into on November 3, 2018. (Pet., ¶ 4(a)-(c) & Attachment 4(b).) The petition also sets forth Judge Ochoa as the arbitrator agreed to by the parties and appointed by the court as further detailed above. (Pet., ¶ 6.) A copy of the written “Arbitrator’s Award” is attached to the petition, and was signed by Judge Ochoa on June 20, 2025. (Pet., Attachment 8(c).) For these reasons, the court finds that the petition complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 1285.4.

“The award shall be in writing and signed by the arbitrators concurring therein. It shall include a determination of all the questions submitted to the arbitrators the decision of which is necessary in order to determine the controversy.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1283.4.)

The Arbitrator’s Award, which is made in writing, states that arbitration was conducted on May 12, 2025, by Judge Ochoa. (Pet., Attachment 8(c) at p. 24, ll. 21-22.) Though plaintiffs and Talahuron was present, WCCI and Edward did not make an appearance or submit an arbitration brief. (Pet., Attachment 8(c) at p. 24, ll. 22-26 & p. 25, ll. 1-3.) Plaintiffs submitted a brief and documentary evidence in the arbitration proceeding, and Judge Ochoa heard from plaintiffs and Talahuron, who did not submit a brief. (Pet., Attachment 8(c) at p. 2, l. 28 – p. 25, l. 2.) Judge Ochoa found that timely and proper notice was provided by plaintiffs. (Pet., Attachment 8(c) at p. 24, l. 27.)

After having read plaintiffs’ arbitration brief and documentary evidence, and hearing the testimony of plaintiffs and Talahuron and the presentation of evidence, Judge Ochoa ordered the entry of an award against WCCI, Edward, and Talahuron, jointly and severally, in the total amount of $3,845,248.54. (Pet., Attachment 8(c) at p. 25, ll. 4-12.)

The petition names WCCI, Edward, and Talahuron as respondents in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1285. On its face, the Arbitrator’s Award appears to address all of the matters in controversy in the arbitration proceeding, and to include a determination of all questions submitted to Judge Ochoa for which a decision was necessary to determine these matters. For these and all reasons discussed above, the court finds that the Arbitrator’s Award constitutes an “award” within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1283.4. (Cinel v. Christopher (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 759, 767-768.)

For all reasons discussed above, the court will grant the petition. The court has reviewed the proposed order submitted by plaintiffs and intends to sign it. Further, the court will order plaintiffs to, on or before November 21, 2025, serve and file notice and proof of service of notice of the court’s ruling herein.