KEVIN G. BROWN OWNER OF ROYAL BREEZE INC. vs FOSTER

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided. *** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G.

CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO,

25CV012226: KEVIN G. BROWN OWNER OF ROYAL BREEZE INC. vs FOSTER 08/04/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Leave to File Untimely Amended Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award in Department 16D

CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING

Petitioner Brown’s motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §473 for “Leave to File Untimely Amended Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award and Response to Respondent’s Cross-Peitition [sic] to Confirm Arbitration Award” is ruled upon as follows.

This matter was commenced on 5/22/2025 following an arbitration. On 1/6/2026, the original Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award was stricken because it was filed on behalf of a corporate entity (Royal Breeze, Inc.) which was not at the time represented by a licensed attorney, but with leave to file an amended petition to vacate signed by a licensed attorney no later than 5/4/2026. As a result, respondent Foster’s cross-petition to confirm the arbitration award was continued to 6/9/2026.

Finding no amended petition to vacate on file, the Court on 6/8/2026 issued a tentative ruling granting as unopposed the cross-petition filed by respondent Foster to confirm the arbitration award. However, the original corporate petitioner appeared for oral argument on 6/9/2026 through its newly retained counsel and the Court explained that the 5/4/2026 deadline for filing an amended petition had already passed, thereby necessitating petitioner to seek and obtain relief under Code of Civil Procedure §473(b) in order before any belated filing of an amended petition would be allowed. Based upon the representation that such a motion would be filed, the Court again continued the pending cross-petition to confirm the arbitration award to 9/24/2026.

The present motion for relief under Code of Civil Procedure §473 is brought on the grounds that petitioner’s failure to timely file an amended Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award and Opposition to Cross-Petition to Enforce Arbitration Award was due to mistake, inadvertence, and/or excusable neglect and is in the furtherance of justice. (Not. of Mot., p.2:1-4.) In brief, the moving papers concede the amended petition was not filed by the 5/4/2026 deadline but insist the failure to do so was “not strategic,” a result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, and excusable neglect by Mr.

Brown who is “not a licensed attorney, has no legal training, and believed the only thing he needed to do was retain an attorney to appear at the June 9, 2026 hearing.” (Mov. MPA, p.3:14- 17.) Additionally, Mr. Brown never received respondent Foster’s opposition or crosspetition and it was not until new counsel retained on 6/5/2026 reviewed the Court’s docket that it was discovered an amended petition and opposition needed to be filed before the 6/9/2026 hearing. Given that the Court has already identified the proper procedure for obtaining relief and continued the hearing on the pending cross-petition to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV012226: KEVIN G. BROWN OWNER OF ROYAL BREEZE INC. vs FOSTER 08/04/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Leave to File Untimely Amended Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award in Department 16D

vacate, petitioner now seeks leave to file the Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award and Opposition attached to the moving papers.

Respondent Foster opposes, arguing first that Petitioner had “sufficient notice to comply” with the Court’s original 1/6/2026 order which set the 5/4/2026 deadline to file an amended petition to vacate but failed to do so despite having “approximately five [sic] months” in which to do so. (Opp., p.2:27-p.3:2.) The opposition next asserts that Petitioner is not entitled to “mandatory relief” under §473(b) based upon attorney fault and that discretionary relief should be denied because “Petitioner cannot amend to plead a meritorious claim or defense.” (Id., at p.3:3-p.8:14.)

With respect to this latter assertion, respondent Foster contends that (1) her reliance on the testimony of a rival of petitioner’s business is not a valid ground for vacating the arbitration award; (2) petitioner has not identified any actionable misconduct by the arbitrator for vacatur; and (3) the arbitrator did not exceed his/her powers. (Id., at p.4:14-p.8:14.) Finally, respondent Foster requests an award of $6,000 fees and costs if relief is granted here.

Relevant Legal Standards

Code of Civil Procedure §473(b) provides in pertinent part:

The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or the party’s legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against the party through the party’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.

There is a vast body of California appellate law addressing the above-cited provisions and it generally holds that §473(b) is “a remedial statute, and as such is to be construed liberally, which is to say expansively, to favor its object that cases be adjudicated on the merits rather than determined by default.” (Standard Microsystems Corp. v. Winbond Electronics Corp. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 868, 894.) Additionally, the remedial provisions of §473 relating to relief from judgments and other proceedings are broad and should therefore be applied liberally in order to carry out the policy of favoring trial on the merits such that courts should take into account the circumstances of each case including any potential prejudice to the parties but there is a strong policy justifying the granting of relief where the moving party timely seeks relief within the specified statutory time period. (See, e.g., Carrasco v.

Craft (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 796, 803.) Appellate review of a trial court’s determination of a motion brought under §473(b) is quite

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV012226: KEVIN G. BROWN OWNER OF ROYAL BREEZE INC. vs FOSTER 08/04/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Leave to File Untimely Amended Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award in Department 16D

deferential, with the disposition of such motion resting largely within the discretion of the trial court and all legitimate inferences to be construed to uphold the decision such that it will not be disturbed on appeal unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion. (Id.) Unlike a motion which seeks relief from default or other proceeding based on extrinsic fraud or mistake, a motion which seeks relief pursuant to the provisions of §473(b) need not show the moving party has a meritorious claim or defense or articulate a satisfactory excuse for not timely asserting such claim or defense. (See, e.g., Bae v. T.D. Service Co. of Arizona (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 89, 100.)

Because this Court previously struck from the record the original 5/22/2025 Petition to Vacate on the grounds it was filed on behalf of a corporate entity which was not at the time represented by a licensed attorney (albeit with leave to file an amended petition to vacate signed by any attorney), also relevant here is California law governing the amendment of pleadings and filings pursuant to the provisions of §473(b). Published appellate opinions too numerous to cite confirm that in California courts, amendments to pleadings are to be granted with great liberality before trial and sometimes even during trial. (See, e.g., Huff v.

Wilkins (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 732, 736.) While there are instances where a trial court’s exercise of discretion denied leave to amend has been upheld on appeal, such instances pale in comparison to those where discretion exercised in favor of granting the amendment was affirmed on review.

Discussion

As set forth above, petitioner now seeks relief from the failure to timely file an amended Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award and Opposition to Cross-Petition by the 5/4/2026 deadline established by the Court’s 1/6/2026 order on the ground that the failure to comply with this deadline was the result of mistake, inadvertence, and/or excusable neglect. (Not. of Mot., p.2:1-4.) In brief, the moving papers generally insist Mr. Brown was mistaken about what the Court actually required to be done at or before the continued 6/9/2026 hearing and this mistake and/or misunderstanding was not ultimately discovered until newly-retained counsel reviewed the Court’s docket shortly the 6/9/2026 hearing.

The Court finds that such mistake and/or misunderstanding constitutes a valid basis for discretionary relief under Code of Civil Procedure §473(b) insofar as it appears to have been the proximate cause of the failure to an amended petition to vacate on or before the 5/4/2026 deadline and §473(b) is a remedial statute that is to be construed liberally in order to promote disposition of disputes on their merits over determinations by mere default.

While petitioner did have roughly four months (not five months, as claimed by the opposition) within which to file the amended petition, this length of time preceding the 5/4/2026 deadline to file an amended petition and opposition is not particularly relevant

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV012226: KEVIN G. BROWN OWNER OF ROYAL BREEZE INC. vs FOSTER 08/04/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Leave to File Untimely Amended Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award in Department 16D

to the disposition of this motion under §473(b) here and certainly does not mandate denial of relief here given the nature of the underlying mistake and/or misunderstanding about what was required in advance of the 6/9/2026 hearing. Provided that the moving papers establish that the failure to file an amended petition was due to some mistake, inadvertence, and/or excusable neglect within the meaning of §473(b), relief is clearly authorized under this statute provided that this motion was filed within a reasonable time period not exceeding six months after the missed 5/4/2026 deadline to file the amended petition. Because this motion clearly meets this standard, the Court finds that relief is both permissible and appropriate under the circumstances here.

The bulk of the opposition is focused on various reasons why discretionary relief under §473(b) should be denied and in particular, respondent contends that “Petitioner cannot amend to plead a meritorious claim or defense.” (Id., at p.3:3-p.8:14.) However, as set forth in the preceding section, while a party requesting relief from default or other proceeding based on extrinsic fraud or mistake must demonstrate the existence of a meritorious claim or defense and also provide a satisfactory excuse for not timely asserting same (see, e.g., Bae v.

T.D. Service Co. of Arizona, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at 100), these prerequisites are not applicable to the present motion which seeks relief pursuant to §473(b) based on mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect or surprise. Consequently, the opposition’s arguments about the insufficiency of the amended petition and opposition to cross-petition are fundamentally premature and inapposite to the resolution of the present motion for relief.

Moreover, it is important to note that the 1/6/2026 order merely struck from the record the original 5/22/2025 Petition to Vacate on the grounds it was filed on behalf of a corporate entity which was not at the time represented by a licensed attorney, but with leave to file an amended petition to vacate was granted. Although the original 5/4/2026 deadline for filing such amended petition has clearly passed, petitioner is now seeking leave to belated file such amended petition and as such, the present motion is in part akin to an ordinary motion to amend.

Although leave to file an amended pleading may be denied where the proposed pleading is legally insufficient, a trial court will not ordinarily consider such a challenge to the sufficiency of the proposed amended pleading in opposition to the underlying motion to amend. (See, e.g., California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280-281 [validity of proposed amendment is generally not considered in deciding whether to grant leave to amend].) Coupled with the fact that respondent Foster has not provided any authority which actually compels this Court to consider here the sufficiency of the proposed amended petition and opposition to cross-petition, this Court will consistent with California law exercise its discretion by granting leave to file the proposed amended petition and opposition to cross-petition, the merits of which respondent Foster remains free to address once the amended petition and/or opposition to cross-petition is actually

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV012226: KEVIN G. BROWN OWNER OF ROYAL BREEZE INC. vs FOSTER 08/04/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Leave to File Untimely Amended Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award in Department 16D

filed and served.

The final issue to be addressed here is respondent Foster’s request for an award of fees and costs in the amount of $6,000 in the event the present motion is granted. The final paragraph of §473(b) mandates an award of attorney fees and costs to opposing counsel but this provision applies only where “mandatory” relief is granted based on an attorney’s declaration of fault. This fee and cost award is inapplicable here insofar as this Court is not granting “mandatory” relief based on an attorney’s declaration of fault but rather is granting “discretionary” relief.

As such, the permissible provisions of §473(c) must be considered but none specifically compels an award of attorney fees and costs to opposing counsel. Instead, §473(c) permits this Court to “[i]Impose a penalty of no greater than one thousand dollars ($1,000) upon an offending attorney or party;” “[d]irect that an offending attorney pay an amount no greater than one thousand dollars ($1,000) to the State Bar Client Security Fund;” and/or “[g]rant other relief as is appropriate.” After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances presented here, the Court concludes that awarding respondent Foster attorney fees and costs in the amount of $6,000 is neither appropriate nor justified especially when the bulk of the opposition papers are not germane to the disposition of the present motion for relief under §473(b).

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, the present motion for “Leave to File Untimely Amended Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award and Response to Respondent’s Cross- Peitition [sic] to Confirm Arbitration Award” is GRANTED.

Petitioner may separately file and serve the proposed amended petition and proposed opposition to cross-petition in the same form which was attached to the moving papers no later than 8/14/2026. (Although not required by court rule or statute, petitioner is directed to present a copy of this order when the amended petition and opposition are presented for filing.)

Respondent Foster may thereafter file and serve any response to the aforementioned documents in conformity with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure.

Petitioner’s amended petition shall be set for 9/24/2026 at 1:30 p.m. in this department, so that it may be heard concurrently with respondent Foster’s own cross-petition.

The Court declines to sign the proposed order submitted with the moving papers and finds that no formal order (in addition to this Minute Order) is necessary.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV012226: KEVIN G. BROWN OWNER OF ROYAL BREEZE INC. vs FOSTER 08/04/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Leave to File Untimely Amended Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award in Department 16D

Moving party to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) court days.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)