Ronald Estes vs Elmer Chacon

Case Number

23CV03136

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 09/18/2023 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Petition: Confirm Arbitration

Tentative Ruling

Ronald D. Estes vs. Elmer Guevara Chacon 

Case No. 23CV03136

           

Hearing Date: September 18, 2023   

Hearing:              Petition To Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award

Attorneys:        For Petitioner Ronald D. Estes: Self Represented

For Respondent Elmer Guevara Chacon: No appearance

TENTATIVE RULING:

For all reasons discussed herein, the petition of Ronald D. Estes to confirm contractual arbitration award is ordered off-calendar.

Background:

On July 21, 2023, Ronald D. Estes (Estes) filed a petition to confirm a contractual arbitration award (the petition) against respondent Elmer Guevara Chacon (Chacon). As alleged or effectively alleged in the petition, Estes and Chacon entered into a written agreement (the agreement) on February 19, 2023, pursuant to which Estes hired Chacon to remove an old fence, build a new fence, and install a drip irrigation system. (Petition, ¶¶ 4.a, 4.b, 5 & Attachment 4(b).) The agreement was made and to be performed in Santa Barbara County. (Id. at ¶¶ 3.b.(4)(b)(i) & (ii).)

A dispute arose regarding Chacon’s work which Estes alleges was “poor” and Chacon’s alleged failure to complete the scope of work. (Petition, ¶ 5.) The parties entered into a “FairClaims Post-Dispute Arbitration Agreement” (the arbitration agreement) that required Estes and Chacon to arbitrate the dispute via a third-party referral service company known as Thumbtack. (Id. at ¶ 4 & Attachment 8(b).) A virtual arbitration hearing was conducted on June 14, 2023, before Laura Bottaro, Esq., who the parties selected as the arbitrator. (Id. at ¶¶ 6, 7.) The arbitration award was made on June 20, 2023, and requires Chacon to pay Estes the amount of $9,350. (Id. at ¶¶ 8.a, 8.b(1) & Attachment 8(c).) The award was served on Estes on June 20, 2023. (Id. at ¶ 9.a.) Estes requests that the Court confirm the arbitration award, and award him interest and costs of suit. (Id. at ¶¶ 810.a, 10.d, 10.e.) Chacon has not filed a 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285; see also Loeb v. Record (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 431, 450 [the prevailing party in an arbitration obtains an enforceable judgment by filing a petition to confirm the arbitration award].) A proceeding to confirm, correct, or vacate an arbitration award “is commenced by filing [the] petition. Any person named as a respondent in a petition may file a response thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.) “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1288.) “A response shall be served and filed within 10 days after service of the petition except that if the petition is served in the manner provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 1290.4, the response shall be served and filed within 30 days after service of the petition.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.6.)

“Proper service of process of [the petition] is the means by which a court obtains personal jurisdiction over a party.” (Abers v. Rohrs (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1199, 1206, original italics [discussing identical statutory requirements for serving a petition to vacate an arbitration award].) Accordingly, before the court may confirm an arbitration award, the petition must be “duly served and filed….” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286; see also Law Finance Group, LLC v. Key (2023) 14 Cal.5th 932, 951 [“[t]he word ‘duly’ means ‘[i]n a proper manner; in accordance with legal requirements[]”] (citation omitted).)

The petition and written notice of the time and place of the hearing of the petition must be “served 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 the manner of service of the petition “and the person upon whom service is to be made has not previously appeared in the proceeding and has not previously been served in accordance with this subdivision,” then service of the petition within the State of California “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).)

The arbitration agreement does not provide the manner in which service of the petition at issue must be served. (See Petition, Attachment 8(b).) In addition, Chacon has not appeared in this proceeding. Therefore, Estes must serve the petition on Chacon in the same manner as a summons in a civil action. Code of Civil Procedure section 415.10 permits service of a summons “by personal delivery of a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served. Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete at the time of such delivery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.10.) In lieu of personal delivery, a summons may be served on a person within the State of California in the manner prescribed in Code of Civil Procedure sections 415.20, 415.30, and 415.50, provided that the party effecting service complies with statutory provisions and requirements. These examples are not intended to be exhaustive.

Court records reflect that on August 7, 2023, Estes filed an “Affidavit of Unsuccessful Service” (the affidavit) which was signed on August 2, 2023, by Bill Brown (Brown) as the “Sheriff’s Authorized Agent”. In the affidavit, Brown declares that on July 27, 2023, he received copies of a Civil Case Cover Sheet, Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum, the petition, a request and notice of hearing, and unspecified attachments which the Sheriff’s Civil Bureau was unable to personally deliver to Chacon at 1810 San Pascual Street in Santa Barbara, California. (Affidavit, ¶¶ 2, 3.) Attached to the affidavit is a Declaration of Diligence (the declaration) which describes several attempts by sheriff’s deputies to personally serve Chacon on July 28 and 31 and August 1 and 2, 2023, at the address described above. Estes submits no other evidence or information to demonstrate effective service of the petition on Chacon by any other manner prescribed by statute.

As Chacon has not been duly served with the petition, the Court’s personal jurisdiction over Chacon has not been established. In addition, because the petition has not been duly served on Chacon, his time to respond to the petition has not run. Under the circumstances present here, the Court cannot issue a binding ruling against Chacon concerning the merits of the petition until service of the petition on Chacon is made in a manner provided by law. (Ziller Electronics Lab GmbH v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1229; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 410.10; 410.50.) For these reasons, the Court will order the petition off-calendar subject to refiling upon proper and effective service of the petition on Chacon in accordance with the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 413.10 et seq. Once service of the petition and any other required documents is made, the Court expects that Estes will file a proof of service evidencing effective service of the petition in accordance with this ruling.