CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES AND HEARING OFFICERS IN STATE EMPLOYMENT vs CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

26CV003633: CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES AND HEARING OFFICERS IN STATE EMPLOYMENT vs CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Vacate Arbitrators Award in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that effective April 13, 2026, this department has moved to the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye courthouse located at 500 G Street in Sacramento, CA 95814. All hearings noticed for Department 25 will be heard in Department 8D of the new courthouse. Parties who wish to contest the tentative ruling below must: (1) request a hearing by calling the Department 8D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-7719 no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the scheduled CMC, and (2) advise opposing counsel of the request.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the scheduled CMC, the tentative ruling shall become the final order of the Court. The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Court assumes that all parties will appear remotely via Zoom unless the Court orders inperson attendance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

26CV003633: CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES AND HEARING OFFICERS IN STATE EMPLOYMENT vs CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Vacate Arbitrators Award in Department 8D

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided

TENTATIVE RULING

Petitioner California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment’s (“Petitioner”) Motion to Vacate Arbitrator’s Award is ruled upon as follows.

Procedural Background

Petitioner filed the instant petition to vacate arbitration award on February 13, 2026. Petitioner represents that the parties attended arbitration on June 9, 2025 and June 11, 2025 before arbitrator Cheryl A. Stevens (“Arbitrator”). The Arbitrator issued her Opinion on November 23, 2025 (“Opinion”).

The Opinion found that Respondent California Public Utilities Commission (“Respondent”) was correct in its argument that the grievance brought by Petitioner was untimely. The Arbitrator denied the grievance on procedural grounds as untimely, making no opinion as to the substantive bases for Petitioner’s claims.

Petitioner brings the instant Petition, seeking to vacate the Arbitrator’s award on the grounds that the Arbitrator exceeded her authority and the award cannot be fairly corrected. Respondent opposes. As part of its opposition, Respondent requests that the arbitration award be confirmed.

Underlying Facts

Petitioner is the exclusive representative of approximately 4,700 attorneys,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV003633: CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES AND HEARING OFFICERS IN STATE EMPLOYMENT vs CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Vacate Arbitrators Award in Department 8D

administrative law judges, and hearing officers in State Bargaining Unit 2. Petitioner and the State are parties to a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) in effect July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2025.

The grievance concerns the timing of Leave Reduction Plans (“LRPs”). MOU section 9.1(F) provides that “[w]henever an employee's vacation accumulation exceeds six hundred forty (640) hours,” the department head or designee may order the employee to submit a vacation request demonstrating how excess hours will be used. (Pet., Attach. 4(b).)

On February 6, 2024, Respondent directed grievant Patrick Petersen — who had accrued 575 hours, 65 short of the cap — to submit an LRP because he was projected to exceed the cap by the end of the year. Petitioner submitted a grievance on February 8, 2024, contending Respondent could not require an LRP before an employee actually exceeded the cap, and demanded arbitration on June 18, 2024.

In relevant part, the MOU provides that:

A. If an informal grievance is not resolved to the satisfaction of the grievant, a formal grievance may be filed no later than: 1. Thirty (30) calendar days after the employee can reasonably be expected to have known of the event occasioning the grievance;

(Pet., Attach. 4(b).)

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 1285 provides that any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct, or vacate the award. Judicial review of a contractual arbitration award is limited. (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blasé (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 10-11; Burlage v. Superior Court (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 524, 529.) A court may not review the merits of the underlying controversy or the arbitrator's reasons, even when an error of law appears on the face of the award and causes substantial injustice. (Moncharsh, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 11, 28; Burlage, supra, at p. 529.) “Arbitration awards are final and conclusive because the parties have agreed they should be so. 'This expectation of finality strongly informs the parties' choice of an arbitral forum over a judicial one. The arbitrator's decision should be the end, not the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV003633: CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES AND HEARING OFFICERS IN STATE EMPLOYMENT vs CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Vacate Arbitrators Award in Department 8D

beginning, of the dispute.'” (Jordan v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 431, 443 [internal citations omitted].)

It is the general rule that courts may not review the merits of the controversy, the validity of the arbitrator's reasoning, or the sufficiency of the evidence. (Moncharsh, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 11.) Indeed, “an arbitrator's decision is not generally reviewable for errors of fact or law,” even if the error appears on the face of the award and causes substantial injustice. (Id. at p. 6.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2(a) provides the limited grounds for vacating an arbitration award:

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 party 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. However, this subdivision does not apply to arbitration proceedings

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV003633: CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES AND HEARING OFFICERS IN STATE EMPLOYMENT vs CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Vacate Arbitrators Award in Department 8D

conducted under a collective bargaining agreement between employers and employees or between their respective representatives.

The moving party has the burden of establishing the claimed grounds for vacating the award. (See Guseinov v. Burns (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 944, 957.) Absent overwhelming proof to the contrary, a court must confirm an arbitration award. (See, e.g., Rivera v. Shivers (2020) 54 Cal. App. 5th 82, 94.)

Discussion

Here, Petitioner argues that the Arbitrator exceeded her powers by disregarding the express language of the agreement between the parties. Petitioner argues that “Arbitrators may exceed their powers when they act in a manner that is not authorized by the arbitration agreement.” (Citing California Union Square L.P. v. Saks & Co. LLC (2020) 50 Cal. App. 5th 340, 348.) Petitioner further argues that “The standard courts have distilled is that ‘a decision exceeds the arbitrator's powers only if it is so utterly irrational that it amounts to an arbitrary remaking of the contract between the parties.’” (Citing S. Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. v. United Transportation Union (1992) 5 Cal. App. 4th 416, 423.)

Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, the Parties engaged in arbitration. As part of the arbitration, the first question considered by the arbitrator was whether the grievance was timely. The Arbitrator found that because this practice had occurred for more than eight years, Petitioner failed to present a timely challenge, and because more than 30 days had passed since each “triggering event.” (Pet., Attach. 8(c).)

Petitioner argues that the Arbitrator relied upon the past pattern and practice of requiring a LRP prior to reaching the cap, improperly relying upon this practice to find that Petitioner and its represented employees cannot now challenge an order to prepare an LRP prior to reaching the cap, because Petitioner has not disputed this practice over the past eight years. Petitioner argues that its failure to previously dispute this practice does not waive Petitioner or its represented employees from disputing it in the future.

An arbitrator does not exceed their powers merely because they reach an erroneous decision. (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 28.) Otherwise, “a litigant could always contend the arbitrator erred and thus exceeded his powers.” (Ibid.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV003633: CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES AND HEARING OFFICERS IN STATE EMPLOYMENT vs CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Vacate Arbitrators Award in Department 8D

While Petitioner argues that the Arbitrator’s finding that the finding that the grievance was untimely constituted a revision of the language of the MOU, the Court disagrees. Timeliness was a question the parties submitted to the Arbitrator. Both parties asked the Arbitrator to decide, as the threshold issue, whether the grievance was timely. That submission is dispositive of much of Petitioner’s argument.

Petitioner filed a grievance on behalf of Petersen only two days after Petersen received an email ordering him to submit an LRP. However, Petitioner did not request arbitration until June 18, 2024. Petitioner presents no evidence or argument that the grievance filed on February 8, 2024 constituted a “formal grievance,” or that his claims were timely. Indeed, the Arbitrator’s Opinion expressly finds that “The evidence presented at the hearing confirms the CPUC’s position that the grievance was untimely.” (Pet., Attach. 8(c), p. 7:6-7.)

Petitioner characterizes the award as importing an “extra-contractual timeliness bar.” The Arbitrator applied section 7.7's express 30-day deadline, which runs from when the employee “can reasonably be expected to have known of the event occasioning the grievance.” Her determination that Petitioner knew or should have known of Respondent’s practice more than 30 days before filing is a finding of fact about when the grievance accrued. It is for the arbitrator, not the court, to find the facts. (Gueyffier v. Ann Summers, Ltd. (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 1179, 1182.)

The Arbitrator’s use of evidence of the eight-year practice to fix that accrual date is interpretation and application of the contract, not modification of it. Extrinsic evidence used “to ascertain” the meaning and application of contract language, rather than “to vary, or contradict,” its terms, is consistent with an integration clause, and an arbitrator’s resolution of such evidence is a factual determination “not subject to judicial review.” (Oakland-Alameda Cnty. Coliseum Auth. v. Golden State Warriors, LLC (2020) 53 Cal. App. 5th 807, 816.) Nothing in the award changed the text of sections 9.1(F), 9.11(E), 7.7, or 7.11(F).

The Court is similarly not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the Arbitrator violated section 7.11(F) language barring modification of the MOU. As explained in Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp. (1994) 9 Cal. 4th 362, 382 violation of an express and explicit restriction can exceed an arbitrator’s powers. However, the restrictions of the relevant agreement must “explicitly and unambiguously” limit the powers of the arbitrator. (Gueyffier v. Ann Summers, Ltd., supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 1185.) Language

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV003633: CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES AND HEARING OFFICERS IN STATE EMPLOYMENT vs CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Vacate Arbitrators Award in Department 8D

barring an arbitrator from modifying an agreement does not prevent the arbitrator from interpreting the language of the contract. (Ibid.) Determining when Petitioner reasonably knew of the practice, for purposes of the section 7.7 deadline, neither added to nor subtracted from any MOU term.

Disposition

Because Petitioner has failed to show that there are appropriate grounds on which to vacate or correct the award, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1286, the Court confirms the arbitration award.

Respondent shall submit a proposed order confirming the award pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.