Pinner vs. Griffin

the amended petition and hearing date on respondent Peter Leuck (Respondent). The court previously continued the hearing on this matter and ordered Petitioner to file an amended petition with specific information and to serve the amended petition and notice of hearing on Respondent. Although Petitioner did file the amended petition, the substitute service on Respondent was not proper.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20, subdivision (b), a respondent may be substitute served by leave a copy of the pleadings at the person’s dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of their office, place of business, or usual mailing address. Here, the process server identified Respondent’s usual place of business at 542 Hamilton Street, Costa Mesa, California 92626, and last known address at 1890 Rhodes Drive, Costa Mesa, California 92626. (ROA 28, Garcia Decl. ¶ 2.)

Instead of substitute serving the pleadings at either of those addresses, the server left them with an individual at 1877 Rhodes Drive, Costa Mesa, California 92626, which is apparently a rental property which Respondent owns, and which was the subject of the underlying representation. (ROA 28, Garcia Decl. ¶4.)

As the 1877 Rhodes Drive has not been shown to be a qualifying location under section 415.20, nor that the individual that received the pleadings was a qualifying individual under subsection (b), service is not proper. Although this may seem like a technicality, it is important to confirm proper service at this stage. If service is not proper, any judgment that is ultimately entered may later be challenged for lack of jurisdiction, and if that challenge is successful the judgment must be set aside and the entire process started over.

Based on the foregoing, the hearing is CONTINUED as set forth above. Petitioner is ordered to timely serve the amended petitioner and notice of hearing on Respondent. Petitioner is ordered to give notice of this ruling and the continued hearing date.

4. Pinner vs. Griffin Before the court is the petition to confirm contractual arbitration award filed by petitioners John R. Pinner and Tara A. Pinner (collectively, Petitioners) against respondents Dirk T. Griffin and Pinner Construction 2026-01576760 Company, Inc. (collectively, Respondents). As more fully set forth below, the petition is GRANTED.

By this petition, Petitioners seeks to confirm the contractual arbitration award JAMS arbitrator Viggo Boserup, Esq. (Arbitrator) issued and served on May 18, 2026, awarding Petitioners $1,242,636.16 against Respondents. (Petition § 8, Ex. 8c.) A petition to confirm a contractual arbitration award must (1) set forth the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate; (2) set forth the names of the arbitrators; and (3) set forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any. (Code Civ.

Proc., §1285.4.) If a petition to confirm an arbitration award “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.) If the award is confirmed, an enforceable judgment is entered with the same force and effect as a judgment in a civil action. (Code Civ. Proc., §1287.4.)

Here, the petition complies with the foregoing requirements by attaching a copy of the parties’ arbitration agreement, identifying the Arbitrator, and attaching a copy of the final award the Arbitrator issues and served on all parties. Accordingly, the petition must be granted and the award confirmed unless Respondents establish a basis for vacating or correcting the award. Respondents have not identified any petition they filed to vacate or correct the award. Instead, Respondent filed an opposition to the petition to confirm the award, arguing the award must be vacated because the Arbitrator allegedly failed to make all necessary disclosures regarding Respondent’s prior counsel.

Respondents’ opposition, however, failed to establish any valid basis for vacating the award or denying the Petition. Contrary to Respondents’ allegation the Arbitrator failed to provide disclosures on or after May 8, 2025, Petitioners provided the subject disclosures showing they were timely made. (Bisharat Decl. ¶ 21, Ex. 14.) Even if the subject disclosures had not been timely made, Respondents provided no evidence showing they timely served a notice of disqualification of the Arbitrator following the supposed failure to produce disclosures. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.91, subds (a) & (c).)

Respondents also proceeded with arbitration on the merits and appear to never have made any objections regarding the Arbitrator until the present opposition. Respondents therefore have waived any objection to the Arbitrator. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.91, subd (c); Alper v. Rotella (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 1142, 1152–53 [“If a party learns the arbitrator failed to disclose information relevant to disqualification, the party must object ‘at the earliest practicable opportunity after discovery of the facts constituting the ground for disqualification.’ [Citation.] ‘While failure to disclose properly a ground for disqualification generally mandates vacation of the award, this rule only applies if the party moving to vacate “had no reason to know of the existence of a nondisclosed matter.” [Citation.]

If a party is “aware that a disclosure is incomplete or otherwise fails to meet the statutory disclosure requirements,” the party “cannot passively reserve the issue for consideration after the arbitration has concluded.”’”].)

Finally, Respondents have identified no conflict with the Arbitrator which would require the Petition to be denied, or the award be vacated. For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is GRANTED. Petitioners are ordered to file a proposed judgment and to give notice of this ruling.

5. Forward Financing LLC vs. Aladdin VIP Transportation Inc 2025-01532815 Before the court is the continued hearing on the petition by petitioner Forward Financing, LLC (Petitioner) seeking to confirm a final arbitration award, dated December 1, 2025, by arbitrator Christina Magee, Esq., at Resolute Systems, LLC, in which Petitioner was awarded $64,425.66 against respondents Aladdin VIP Transportation Inc. and Alaaeddin Atik (collectively, Respondents). As more fully set forth below, the petition is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The court first heard this petition on March 26, 2026. At that time, the court continued the hearing because Petitioner failed to file a proof of service showing Respondents and been properly served with the petition and notice of the hearing. Specifically, the court ruled as follows:

“Before the Court is the petition by petitioner Forward Financing, LLC (Petitioner) seeking to confirm a final arbitration award, dated December 1, 2025, by arbitrator Christina Magee, Esq., at Resolute Systems, LLC, in which Petitioner was awarded $64,425.66 against respondents Aladdin VIP Transportation Inc. and Alaaeddin Atik