DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV006607·monterey·Civil·Contract
Hearing 2 months agoCONTINUED

UniFirst Corporation v. G&A Welding

Motion to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award

Hearing date
Jun 26, 2026
Department
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffUniFirst Corporation
DefendantG&A Welding

Ruling

UniFirst Corporation v. G&A Welding

Motion to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award

Hearing Date: June 26, 2026 (continued from 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”). At the hearing on May 1, 2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file supplemental papers by June 18, 2026, to address whether it properly served Defendant with the Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (“Petition”). To date, Plaintiff has not filed any papers.

As noted in its April 30, 2026, Tentative Ruling, the Court cannot rule on Plaintiff’s motion due to discrepancies between the service address and person listed 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”). [See Code Civ. Proc. § 1286 (“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.”).] If proper service is confirmed, then the Court is inclined to grant the Petition.

1

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share