Huttar v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

(Santa Monica Courthouse: Dept. O) August 20, 2026 DEPARTMENT O LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

August 20, 2026 24SMCV00068 (Huttar v. Uber Technologies, Inc.) RELEVANT BACKGROUND On January 5, 2024, Shau Huttar (Plaintiff) filed his complaint against Uber Technologies Inc. (Uber) alleging one cause of action for libel per se.

On May 14, 2024, the Court granted Uber's motion to compel arbitration.

On March 5, 2026, the appointed arbitrator, Hon. Elizabeth R. Feffer (Ret.) of ADR, issued a final arbitration award against Plaintiff and in favor of Uber. (Ex. 3.)

INSTANT MOTION On August 24, 2026, Uber filed the instant petition to confirm arbitration award.

No opposition has been filed. Uber filed a reply. Plaintiff has not filed a motion to vacate the award.

DISCUSSION After an arbitration award has been made, any party may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1285.)

A petition to confirm arbitration is required to include: (a) the substance of or attach a copy of the agreement to arbitrate; (b) the names of the arbitrators; and (c) a copy of the arbitration award and written opinion of the arbitrator. (Id., Sec. 1285.4.)

A response to the petition can request the court to dismiss, vacate, correct, or confirm the award. (Id., Sec. 1285.2)

If a petition to confirm is duly served and filed, and unless a petition to correct or vacate the award has been timely filed, "the court shall confirm the award as made, whether rendered in this state or another state." (Id. at Sec. 1286.)

"A petition to confirm an award shall be served and filed not later than four years after the date of service of a signed copy of the award on the petitioner. A petition to vacate an award or to correct an award shall be served and filed not later than 100 days after the date of the service of a signed copy of the award on the petitioner." (Id., subd. 1288.)

"No petition may be served and filed under this chapter until at least 10 days after service of the signed copy of the award upon the petitioner." (Id., Sec. 1288.4.)

"A proceeding under this title in the courts of this State is commenced by filing a petition. Any person named as a respondent in a petition may file a response thereto. The allegations of a petition are deemed to be admitted by a respondent duly served therewith unless a response is duly served and filed. The allegations of a response are deemed controverted or avoided." (Id., Sec. 1290.)

"Once a petition to confirm an award is filed, the superior court must select one of only four courses of action: it may confirm the award, correct and confirm it, vacate it, or dismiss the petition." (EHM Productions, Inc. v. Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1063.)

"It is well settled that the scope of judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely narrow." (California Faculty Assn. v. Superior Court (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 935, 943.)

"Neither the trial court, nor the appellate court, may 'review the merits of the dispute, the sufficiency of the evidence, or the arbitrator's reasoning, nor may we correct or review an award because of an arbitrator's legal or factual error, even if it appears on the award's face.'" (Ibid.)

The limited grounds on which the Court may vacate an arbitration award are outlined in Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1286.2, subdivision (a): "Subject to Section 1286.4, the court shall vacate the award if the court determines any of the following:¿¿ ¿¿ (1) The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means.¿¿ (2) There was corruption in any of the arbitrators.¿¿ (3) The rights of the party were substantially prejudiced by misconduct of a neutral arbitrator.¿¿ (4) The arbitrators exceeded their powers and the award cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy submitted.¿¿ (5) The rights of the parties were substantially prejudiced by the refusal of the arbitrators to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or by the refusal of the arbitrators to hear evidence material to the controversy or by other conduct of the arbitrators contrary to the provisions of this title.¿¿ (6) An arbitrator making the award either: (A) failed to disclose within the time required for disclosure a ground for disqualification of which the arbitrator was then aware; or (B) was subject to disqualification upon grounds specified in Section 1281.91 but failed upon receipt of timely demand to disqualify himself or herself as required by that provision. (Code Civ.

Proc. Sec. 1286.2 (a)(1)-(6).)

The Court finds that Uber has complied with the relevant procedural prerequisites to confirm the award regarding the filing requirements, service of the petition and notice of the hearing, service of the award, and timeliness of the petition. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1283.6, 1285.4, 1288, 1288.4, 1290; See Petition, Ex. 1-3.)

Further, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or a motion to vacate the ward. (Id. at Sec. 1286.)

Accordingly, Uber's unopposed petition to confirm the arbitration award is GRANTED.

Case Number: 26SMCV00272 Hearing Date: August 20, 2026 Dept: O TENTATIVE RULING August 20, 2026 26SMCV00272 (Miller v. Movshovich, et. al.) RELEVANT BACKGROUND On January 7, 2026, plaintiff Alexander Miller (Plaintiff) filed the complaint against Ilya Movshovich (Ilya); Ashley Movshovich; Digital Athlete Ventures, LLC; Cobh Ramblers Limited; Movshovich Consulting; Volk Consulting, LLC; Bryant Clark; Fifty Five South Ventures; Alex Malavenda; Pedro Lombardo; JPX Investments; and Does 1-50.

Plaintiff alleges eleven causes of arising from conduct occurring outside of California and a contract that mandates Ireland as the sole venue for litigation, and Irish law as the sole law to be applied, for a matter concerning an Irish football club. (See Complaint, Ex. A.)

Additionally, Ilya is a Florida resident. (Id. P. 2 ["Defendant...is an individual residing at 9320 SW 178th Street, Miami, Florida 33157."].)

On June 5, 2026, the Court granted Ilya's motion to quash service of summons.

INSTANT MOTION On June 5, 2026, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to vacate the Court's June 5, 2026 order granting Ilya's motion to quash service of summons.

Ilya filed an opposition, and Plaintiff filed a reply.

DISCUSSION "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..." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 473, subd. (b).

"When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown." (Id., Sec. 1008, subd. (a).)

Here, Plaintiff argues that the Court's June 5, 2026 order on the motion to quash should be vacated due to a calendaring conflict.

Plaintiff's