Petition to Confirm, Correct, or Vacate Contractual Arbitration Award
25CV012226: KEVIN G. BROWN OWNER OF ROYAL BREEZE INC. vs FOSTER 01/06/2026 Hearing on Petition to Confirm, Correct, or Vacate Contractual Arbitration Award (Alternative Dispute Resolution) in Department 53
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE:
Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:
To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.
Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.
The Department 53 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.
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.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
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 Courts 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
25CV012226: KEVIN G. BROWN OWNER OF ROYAL BREEZE INC. vs FOSTER 01/06/2026 Hearing on Petition to Confirm, Correct, or Vacate Contractual Arbitration Award (Alternative Dispute Resolution) in Department 53
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 forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
On the Court's own motion, the Hearing on Petition to Confirm, Correct, or Vacate Contractual Arbitration Award (Alternative Dispute Resolution) scheduled for 01/06/2026 is continued to 06/09/2026 at 1:30 PM in Department 53 at Hall of Justice.
This hearing was set for consideration of a Petition to Vacate Contractual Arbitration Award.
The Petition is unclear as to the identity of the petitioner. The caption of the Petition identifies Petitioner as Royal Breeze Inc., and does not identify any attorney of record. (Petition, p. 1.) However, the Petitioner identifies the title of the action as Kevin G. Brown v. Silvia Foster, suggesting the Petition is actually brought by Kevin G. Brown, an individual. (Ibid.) The body of the Petition identifies Petitioner in a third manner as Kevin G. Brown Owner of Royal Breeze Inc. (Id., item 1.) The Petitioner then identifies the capacity of the Petitioner as a corporation qualified to do business in California. (Id., item 3.) The Petition indicates that the arbitration award being challenged was directed at Royal Breeze. (Id, item g.) Finally, the Petition is signed by Kevin G. Brown. (Id., p. 3.)
Based on the above, it appears that Royal Breeze, Inc., (Royal Breeze) a corporation, is requesting an order to vacate a contractual arbitration award entered against it and that Kevin G. Brown, an individual, is attempting to represent Royal Breeze in this proceeding.
It is well settled that a corporation cannot represent itself in court, either in propria persona or through an officer or agent who is not an attorney. (Merco Const. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 729 quoting Vann v. Shileh (1975) 54Cal.App.3d 192, 199.) Further, a pleading signed by an agent of a corporation who is not a licensed attorney is subject to a motion to strike. (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141.) A court may strike such a pleading at any time in its discretion. (See ibid; Code Civ. Proc. § 436.)
As noted above, the Petition appears to be brought by Royal Breeze and was signed on its behalf by Kevin G. Brown. There is no indication that Kevin G. Brown is a licensed attorney qualified to represent Royal Breeze. The Petitioner therefore fails to conform with Code of Civil Procedure § 446 and the law prohibiting unlicensed attorneys from signing pleadings on behalf of a corporation. (See also Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6125.)
Based on the foregoing, on its own motion, the Court strikes the Petition from the record. As
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
25CV012226: KEVIN G. BROWN OWNER OF ROYAL BREEZE INC. vs FOSTER 01/06/2026 Hearing on Petition to Confirm, Correct, or Vacate Contractual Arbitration Award (Alternative Dispute Resolution) in Department 53
Royal Breeze may cure the defect if it retains a licensed attorney who refiles and amends the Petition, the Court will grant leave to amend. (See CLD Construction, Inc., supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1146-1147.)
Respondent Sylvia Fosters response to the Petition includes a cross-petition to confirm the arbitration award. A cross-petition to confirm the award is properly included in a response to a petition to vacate an arbitration award. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1285.2.) If a petition or response under this chapter 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 proceedings. (Code Civ.
Proc. § 1286.) As a response was duly served and filed, the Court must consider Respondents crosspetition and determine whether the award shall be confirmed, corrected, vacated, or dismissed. As the Court has determined Royal Breeze should be granted leave to amend, the Court will continue the hearing so that Royal Breeze may have an opportunity to retained licensed California counsel that may file an amended petition to be heard concurrently with the crosspetition.
The hearing is CONTINUED to June 9, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 53. Royal Breeze may file and serve an amended petition on or before May 4, 2026. If an amended petition is filed, Respondent may file and serve amended response on or before May 14, 2026. If no amended petition is filed, the Court will proceed in addressing the cross-petition at the next hearing.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.