VACATUR AND CONFIRMATION-TIME LIMITS

Valencia v. Mendoza, 103 Cal. App. 5th 427

Valencia prevailed in an arbitration based on Mendoza’s alleged failure to reveal construction defects in a home purchase. Valencia moved to confirm the award. Mendoza filed a timely response to the petition to confirm the award, but it was not supported by any evidence. Only on the eve of the hearing on the petition to confirm, nearly four weeks after service of the petition to confirm (and well after the 10-day time limitation), did Mendoza file a petition to vacate the award that included supporting declarations and evidence. The motion to confirm was granted and Mendoza appealed.

The Court of Appeal affirmed. There is no material distinction between a request to vacate filed as a response to a petition to confirm under section 1288.2 and a standalone petition to vacate under section 1288 with respect to whether the 10-day deadline under section 1290.6 controls. It does. Accordingly, the trial court was not required to consider the evidence attached to the late-filed petition to vacate before ruling on the petition to confirm. A contrary holding would vitiate a trial court's ability to act on a timely filed petition to confirm an award and require a court to continue a hearing on an unopposed (or inadequately opposed) petition to confirm for up to 100 days from the filing of the award where, as here, the opposing party represents it plans to seek to vacate the award.

In opposition to the petition to confirm, Mendoza objected to the arbitrator’s refusal to admit two pieces of evidence. In one instance, Mendoza attempted to impeach the building inspector by introducing a card in which the inspector wrote “OK to close”, referring to a wall which hid the defects. The inspector had testified that he did not discover the defects because Mendoza had closed the wall without permission before the inspection. The arbitrator refused to admit the evidence because Mendoza did not produce the card until the day before the hearing, notwithstanding many requests from Valencia.

Mendoza did not submit any reason why he was unable to submit evidence and a more developed argument in support of his opposition. Moreover, Mendoza failed to request an order extending the deadline to file a response under section 1290.6 (or request Valencia stipulate to an extension), either before or after the deadline passed. Because Mendoza did not submit evidence in the opposition to the petition to confirm and did not demonstrate good cause for relief from the 10-day deadline under section 1290.6, the court declined to consider the untimely evidence in reviewing the award.