P&P INDUSTRIES LLC ET AL VS. RANDALL USSERY ET AL

Matter on Calendar for Tuesday, August 5, 2025, Line 1 [Part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling], PETITIONERS P&P INDUSTRIES LLC, A VERMONT LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AND JT3CAPITAL LLC's MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD.

Disclosure: Judge Van Aken discloses that she serves on the board of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers, Northern California Chapter. Hon. James P. Kleinberg (Ret.) is also a member of that board.

Tentative: Petitioners' (P&P Industries and JT3Capital) Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award is granted. Respondents' (Randall Ussery; Kemal Farid; Steigen LLC; Farid Ventures, LLC; Latitude 37 Ventures, LLC; and Everest Financial, Inc.) request to vacate the award is denied.

The grounds to vacate an arbitration award are extremely narrow. (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 13 ["the general rule [is] that an arbitrator's decision is not ordinarily reviewable for error by either the trial or appellate courts"]; Zazueta v. County of San Benito (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 106, 110 ["Judicial review of arbitration awards is limited"].) Respondents fail to show that there is a statutory ground to vacate the award. It therefore must be confirmed.

Arbitrator exceeded powers (CCP 1286.2(a)(4)): Respondents argue that the arbitrator exceeded his powers because the award contains clear miscalculations and the arbitrator improperly awarded damages to non-parties Greg Park and John Tilney. The court disagrees in light of the relationship between these non-parties and the petitioner entities. Greg Park is the principal of petitioner P&P INDUSTRIES LLC and John Tilney is the principal of JT3CAPITAL LLC. (Anderlini Supp. Decl., par. 2.) Petitioners characterized themselves as the "personal asset LLCs" of the individuals. (Claimants' Hearing Brief, 2:9-10.)

The caption of the arbitration award clearly identifies the LLCs as the claimants. Based on this relationship, it cannot be said that the arbitrator's use of the individual names as a shorthand way to reference the LLCs was in error or that he is awarding damages to "non-parties." The arbitrator clearly states that "[t]he monetary damages...are to be paid to Claimants...", i.e., the petitioner LLCs. (Final Award, pg. 5.) Any judgment that the court issues will be in favor of the petitioners and not the individual non-parties.

The court can correct an award where there is an "evident miscalculation of figures." (CCP 1286.6(a).) Here, respondents claim that the arbitrator erred when he concluded petitioners invested over $10,000,000 in respondent Latitude 37 Ventures, LLC when they actually only invested $1,500,000. From what can be discerned from the scant record before the court, petitioners obtained these additional funds and invested them in the Annapurna Evergreen Fund, which respondent Latitude 37 Ventures, LLC had an ownership interest in. Respondents fail to highlight an evident miscalculation and their attack is really an improper attack on the merits of the arbitrator's decision. (Moncharsh, 3 Cal.4th at 11 ["[I]t is the general rule that, 'The merits of the controversy between the parties are not subject to judicial review.'"].)

Refusal to hear evidence (CCP 1286.2(a)(5): The court can vacate an arbitration award where a party's rights are "substantially prejudiced" by the arbitrator's refusal to hear material evidence. (CCP 1286.2(a)(5).) Here, respondents complain that they were prohibited "from fully questioning the witnesses about the Operating Agreement." (LaPorte Decl., par. 5 (emphasis added).) Respondents' subjective complaint fails to show prejudice and it is undisputed that the Operating Agreement was accepted into evidence at the arbitration. (LaPorte Decl., Ex. A.)

[End of part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling] =(301/CVA) | |