Plaintiff’s Motion to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award
June 5, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar
HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ 9:00 AM Line 7 25-CLJ-10102 UNIFIRST CORPORATION VS. BAY HILL HEATING & AIR
UNIFIRST CORPORATION JUDE C. COOPER BAY HILL HEATING & AIR
Plaintiff’s Motion to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award
TENTATIVE RULING:
Initially, the Court notes that Petitioner has not provided the correct address for the hearing. Department 20 is located at the Norther Courthouse, Courtroom L, 1050 Mission Road, South San Francisco, CA 94080. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1110 [the Notice “must specify” the location of the hearing].)
The unopposed Motion on Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award (the “Motion”) brought by Petitioner Unifirst Corporation is DENIED, without prejudice.
Background
The Petition that initiated the instant action alleges that arbitration was conducted by written submissions on June 6, 2025, and that the Arbitration Award made on July 10, 2025, requires Respondent to pay to Petitioner $28,627.42. Petitioner asks the Court to confirm the award and enter judgment accordingly. Petitioner brings the instant Motion on Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award (the “Motion”) to ask the Court to confirm the Arbitration Award in its favor and against Respondent in the amount of $28,627.42. That is, the Motion seeks the same relief as the Petition, on which a Case Management and Trial Setting Conference is set for June 15, 2026.
Notice Is Defective—as to Both the Motion and the Petition.
The unrepresented Respondent, which has not appeared, has no address of record. The Proof of Service of the Motion declares service to an address in “El Palo Alto, CA 94303.” Even though this address is clearly, facially incorrect, it is also the address at which the Proof of Service regarding the Summons and the original Petition (filed on January 9, 2026) attempts to declare personal service upon Rogelio Estrada, therein identified as Respondent’s registered agent. While the Proof of Service regarding the Summons also attempts to declare that the server is a registered California process server, so that it would be accorded a presumption of the facts stated therein (Evid.
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?”
Code, § 647), the Proof of Service regarding the Summons is not executed. Thus, there is no evidence that the Summons and the Petition that initiated the instant action were served on Respondent; indeed, the evidence suggests that they were not. On this record, due process concerns alone would preclude relief. Without proof that the Summons was served, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this matter.
June 5, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar
HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________
The California Rules of Court provide, in pertinent part, that, “The complaint must be served on all named defendants and proofs of service on those defendants must be filed with the court within 60 days after the filing of the complaint.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.110(b).) Further:
If a party fails to serve and file pleadings as required under this rule, and has not obtained an order extending time to serve its pleadings, the court may issue an order to show cause why sanctions shall not be imposed. (Id., rule 3.110(f).)
Accordingly, the Court joins the already scheduled Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions to Petitioner’s Counsel, Jude Cooper, set for hearing on June 15, 2026, on a separate basis of failing to file a Proof of Service of the Summons and the Petition on Respondent within 60 days after having filed the Petition.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept20@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the CRC. Please note that Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) states in part “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order REPEATING VERBATIM the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be filed or e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the Court.