Deborah Sharpe v. Brian Joseph Chesky et al.

LINE CASE NO. CASE TITLE TENTATIVE RULING 9:00 24CV430182 Deborah Sharpe v. Brian Joseph Click on LINE 1 or scroll down for ruling. 1 Chesky et al.

9:00 24CV450818 Cavalry SPV I, LLC v. Jose Moreno Motion for judgment on the pleadings: notice is 2 proper, and the motion is unopposed. The court has reviewed defendant’s answer and agrees with plaintiff that it does not set forth a valid defense to the breach of contract cause of action. In fact, defendant’s answer admits the allegations of the complaint. The motion is GRANTED. Moving party to prepare formal order. 9:00 25CV463924 Maria O. Baltier et al. v. General Click on LINE 3 or scroll down for ruling. 3 Motors, LLC

9:00 25CV469564 Daniel Sievers v. Hyundai Motor OFF CALENDAR 4 America

9:00 25CV457836 Chao Xu v. Booking.com (USA) Inc. OFF CALENDAR 5 et al.

9:00 25CV468257 Argent Investments LLC v. Ye Rang Click on LINE 6 or scroll down for ruling. 6 Choi

Line 1 Case Name: Deborah Sharpe v. Brian Joseph Chesky et al. Case No.: 24CV430182

This is a petition to vacate an arbitration award, filed by petitioner Deborah Sharpe against respondent Airbnb, Inc. (“Airbnb”). Airbnb argues that the petition is untimely under both the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and the California Arbitration Act (“CAA”), because Sharpe filed it on April 8, 2026, which was 138 days after the November 21, 2025 award was served on her (or 128 days after the December 1, 2025 corrected award was served). The statutory deadline under the FAA is “three months.” (9 U.S.C. § 12.) The deadline under the CAA is “100 days.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1288.)

The court agrees with Airbnb that the petition is untimely under both the FAA and the CAA, and so it does not need to resolve the parties’ dispute as to which statute applies. In addition, the court does not need to address the parties’ remaining arguments on the merits. Nevertheless, the court will note that even though Sharpe asserts that the arbitrators exceeded their authority, improperly excluded evidence, were fundamentally unfair, and violated public policy, she fails to identify anything in the record to support these conclusory assertions. Instead, based on what she identifies in the record, her basic complaint appears to be that the arbitrators failed to apply the law correctly, but that is not a basis for vacating an arbitration award.

The petition is DENIED as untimely.

3