Domingo v. LA COUNTY METRO. TRANSP. AUTH.

88 Cal.Rptr.2d 224 (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 550 Hermin DOMINGO, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Defendant and Appellant.

No. B126199. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Five.

August 24, 1999. [225] Shan K. Théver & Associates, Shan K. Théver and Donald G. Forgey, Los Angeles; Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP, Martin Stein and Carolyn Oill, Beverly Hills, for Defendant and Appellant.

Stanley Z. White & Associates and Stanley Z. White, Beverly Hills, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

GODOY PEREZ, J.

Appellant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority appeals from denial of its request for trial de novo following court-ordered judicial arbitration. After review, we reverse and remand.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In July 1996 respondent Hermin Domingo sued appellant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for personal injuries she allegedly suffered while riding one of appellant's buses. In March 1998, the court ordered the case to judicial arbitration. As the parties awaited their arbitration date, appellant's attorneys moved their offices from 221 North Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, to 865 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles.

The arbitration hearing took place on June 17, 1998, and on June 24, 1998, the arbitrator awarded respondent $50,000. The arbitrator served his award that day and filed it with the court the following day, but due to a typographical error, the arbitrator mailed appellant's copy of the award to 8655 South Figueroa, Los Angeles, instead of the correct address at 865 South Figueroa, Los Angeles. The post office returned the misaddressed envelope to the arbitrator, who, instead of correcting his typographical error, remailed the award to appellant's attorneys at their former address at 221 North Figueroa Street, Los Angeles.

In the months following their office move, appellant's attorneys periodically contacted their former landlord to see if any mail had been delivered to their old address. On Friday, July 24, 1998, they learned the arbitration award had been received that day at their old offices and immediately retrieved it. The award now in hand, appellant served a request for trial de novo the following Monday, July 27, 1998, and attempted to file the request with the court the next day. The clerk of the court rejected the request as untimely, however, because more than 30 days had passed since the arbitrator's award had been filed, causing it to be entered as the court's judgment earlier that day. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1141.20, subd. (a) ["An arbitration award shall be final unless a request for a de novo trial is filed within 30 days after the arbitrator files the award with the court."]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1616(a) [request for trial de novo must be filed within 30 days of the award].)[1]