petition to confirm attorney-client fee arbitration award
before the designated hearing time. Once the online check-in is completed, participants will be prompted to join the courtroom’s Zoom hearing session. Participants will initially be directed to a virtual waiting room pending the start of their specific video hearing. Check-in instructions and instructional video are available at. The Court’s “Appearance Procedures and Information--Civil Unlimited and Complex” and “Guidelines for Remote Appearances” also are available at. Those procedures and guidelines will be strictly enforced.
Public Access: The courtroom remains open for all evidentiary and non-evidentiary proceedings. Members of the media or public may obtain access to law and motion hearings in this department by either coming to the department at the designated hearing time or contacting the courtroom clerk at (657) 622-5223 to obtain login information. For remote appearances by the media or public, please contact the courtroom clerk 24 hours in advance so as not to interrupt the hearings.
NO FILMING, BROADCASTING, PHOTOGRAPHY, OR ELECTRONIC RECORDING IS PERMITTED OF THE VIDEO SESSION PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 1.150 AND ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT RULE 180.
# Case Name Case Number Tentative 1. Renner vs. Leuck 2026-01553475
Before the court is the petition of petitioner Robert K. Renner (Petitioner) to confirm attorney-client fee arbitration award. As more fully set forth below, the petition is CONTINUED TO THURSDAY, AUGUST 27, 2026, AT 2:00 P.M., IN DEPARTMENT C23, for Petitioner to file an amended petition making all required showings needed to confirm a contractual arbitration award.
By this petition, Petitioner seeks to confirm the arbitration award against respondent Peter Leuck (Respondent) that Hon. Elizabeth R. Feffer (Ret.) issued from the parties’ arbitration held on December 12, 2025. The award is dated February 2, 2026.
Although the arbitration involved an attorney-client fee dispute arising from Petitioner’s representation of Respondent in earlier litigation and Respondent’s failure to pay Petitioner the agreed upon fees, the arbitration was conducted as a contractual arbitration not a mandatory fee arbitration under the Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6200, et seq.).
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
In filing the petition, Petitioner used the Judicial Council Form Petition that is used to confirm arbitration awards that become binding pursuant to the terms of the Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act. Indeed, section 6 of the form requires the petition to check the box stating the grounds on which the award became binding—i.e., by subsequent agreement of the parties or because no party requested a trial de novo within 30 days.
Moreover, arbitrations under Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act generally are conducted through a local bar association or the State Bar; they are not conducted through private arbitration providers like ADR Services, Inc., which was the arbitration provider in this case.
The arbitration award Judge Feffer issued makes clear the arbitration was conducted pursuant to an agreement to arbitrate, not the Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act. At page 2 of the award, the first sentence under the heading “III. Jurisdiction and Relevant Procedural History” reads as follows: “This matter is set forth to binding arbitration pursuant to the parties’ Engagement Agreement and Fee Contract (Exhibit 1, ¶ 8.).”
Code of Civil Procedure section 1285.4 sets forth the essential terms of a petition to confirm a contractual arbitration award as follows: “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.”
Although Petitioner’s petition identifies the arbitrator and attaches a copy of her award, it does not set forth the substance or attach a copy of the agreement to arbitrate that Judge Feffer identified as the basis for the arbitration award.
Based on the foregoing, the hearing is CONTINUED as set forth above. Petitioner is ordered to forthwith file an amended petition, using Judicial Council Form ADR-106, entitled Petition Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award, and provide all information required to confirm a contractual arbitration award. The amended petition also must be timely served on Respondent. Petitioner is ordered to give notice of this ruling and the continued hearing date.
2. Xie vs. Chang 2025-01481320
Before the court is the continued hearing on the petition of petitioners Shuchun Xie and Zixuan An (collectively, Petitioners) to confirm a contractual arbitration award against respondents Emerald Monkey, LLC, Emerald Dragon, LLC, Alan Tsai, Edward Manolos, and Henry