UniFirst Corporation v. G&A Welding

UniFirst Corporation v. G&A Welding

Motion to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award

Hearing Date: May 1, 2026

PARTIES TO APPEAR on the motion of Plaintiff UniFirst Corporation (“Plaintiff”) to confirm its arbitration award previously entered against Defendant G&A Welding (“Defendant”). Specifically, Plaintiff shall address whether it properly served Defendant with the Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (“Petition”).

Any party involved in an arbitration award can petition the court to confirm, correct, or vacate it. [Code Civ. Proc. § 1285.] “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 (emphasis added).] A petition to confirm a binding arbitration must name all parties to the arbitration as respondents and may include other parties affected by the award. [Code Civ.

Proc. § 1285.] The petition should: (1) detail the arbitration agreement or attach a copy unless the petitioner disputes its existence; (2) identify the arbitrator; and (3) include or attach the award and the arbitrator’s written opinion. [Code Civ. Proc. § 1285.4, subds. (a)-(c).] “The allegations of a petition are deemed to be admitted by a respondent duly served therewith unless a response is duly served and filed.” [Code Civ. Proc. § 1290.]

The Petition was filed on December 23, 2025, but Defendant has not yet responded or sought to vacate the award. Generally, the Court would accept the Petition’s allegations as true and grant the motion, especially since more than 100 days have passed and judicial review of arbitration awards is very limited. [Reed v. Mutual Service Corp. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1365; Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 10; Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1286.4, 1286.8, and 1288.] However, PARTIES TO APPEAR to discuss whether the Petition was properly served on Defendant. [Code Civ.

Proc. § 1286.] The Proof of Service states that Plaintiff personally served the Petition on Defendant “c/o Registered Agent, Nathan Griffith,” at “824 Crazy Horse Drive, Paso Robles, CA 93446,” on January 2, 2026. [Proof of Service, filed 1/13/26, at ¶¶ 2-4.] But, both the Customer Service Agreement and the Arbitration Award, which accompany the Petition, list a different address for Defendant: “343 Rianda Street, Salinas, CA 93901,” and identify “Daniel Avalos” as associated with Defendant. [Petition, filed 12/23/25, at Attachments 4(b), p. 1, and 8(c), p. 1.]

Due to the discrepancies between the service address and person in the Petition and Motion (“Gary Griffith” at “824 Crazy Horse Drive, Paso Robles”) and those in the Customer Service Agreement and Arbitration Award (“Daniel Avalos” at “343 Rianda Street, Salinas”), the Court cannot rule on Plaintiff’s motion.

1