JOHN VALDEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF VS. GARIB KARAPETYAN, A/K/A JUSTIN KARAPETYAN, AN ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 302 - CGC22598808 - June 3, 2025 Hearing date: June 3, 2025 Case number: CGC22598808 Case title: JOHN VALDEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF VS. GARIB KARAPETYAN, A/K/A JUSTIN KARAPETYAN, AN ET AL Case Number: | | CGC22598808 | Case Title: | | JOHN VALDEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF VS. GARIB KARAPETYAN, A/K/A JUSTIN KARAPETYAN, AN ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-06-03 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Second Amended Notice Of Petition To Confirm Arbitration Award | Rulings: | | Matter on the Law & Motion/Discovery Calendar for Tuesday, June 03, 2025, Line 3, DEFENDANT RONALD FOREMAN, FOREMAN & BRASSO's Second Amended Notice Of Petition To Confirm Arbitration Award. (Part 1 of 2).

Defendants Ronald Foreman and Foreman & Brasso's petition to confirm arbitration award is GRANTED.

The grounds to vacate an arbitration award are extremely narrow. (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 13 ["the general rule [is] that an arbitrator's decision is not ordinarily reviewable for error by either the trial or appellate courts"]; Zazueta v. County of San Benito (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 106, 110 ["Judicial review of arbitration awards is limited"].) A party seeking to avoid a final award must generally make one or more of the showings set out in subdivision (a) to section 1286.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and fit their claim within one of the listed categories.

Plaintiff here failed to establish cause to avoid the arbitrator's final award. Plaintiff argues that the arbitrator denied discovery and refused to postpone the proceedings. As for discovery, there is no contention that the parties did not initially exchange documents per ADRS Rule 22. The arbitrator noted that Plaintiff sought discovery pertaining to damages and the proceedings were bifurcated into phase one (liability) and phase two (damages). (Petition, Ex. 8(c) [Final Award at pgs. 2-3].) Since Plaintiff lost on liability, there is no showing of prejudice from denial of discovery on damages. The declaration does not explain what discovery the arbitrator precluded that adversely affected Plaintiff's case, let alone establish that he was "substantially prejudiced" as a result. (See CCP 1286.2(a)(3), (5).)

As to postponement, Plaintiff's evidence focuses on the fact the arbitration proceeded even though lead counsel Sommers had suffered a concussion days before the start date. (See Sommers Decl.) Sommers, in fact, participated in the arbitration and there has been no showing that he and co-counsel Steiner failed to properly manage the litigation. (Murphy Decl., pars. 36-39.) Here, again, Plaintiff has not shown substantial prejudice from the decision to move forward. (See CCP 1286.2(a)(3), (5).)