Court Opinion

ID: 9945500
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 21:03:28.873647+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:30.727071
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/27/24 Ortiz v. Related Management Co. CA2/1
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                        DIVISION ONE

 MARCO ORTIZ,                                                 B327016

           Plaintiff and Appellant,                           (Los Angeles County
                                                              Super. Ct. No. BC718443)
           v.

 RELATED MANAGEMENT
 COMPANY, L.P.,

           Defendant and
           Respondent.

     APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Randolph M. Hammock, Judge. Affirmed.
     Law Offices of Ramin R. Younessi, Ramin R. Younessi,
Samantha L. Ortiz, and Christopher S. Afgani for Plaintiff and
Appellant.
     Greenberg Traurig, Karin L. Bomholdt, Lindsay E. Hutner,
and Tayanah C. Miller for Defendant and Respondent.
             __________________________________
      Appellant Marco Ortiz contends the trial court erred in
denying his request to vacate an arbitration award that
dismissed his claims against respondent Related Management
Company, L.P. (Related). We find that because Ortiz failed to
respond to Related’s petition to confirm the arbitration award
within the 10-day time limit specified in Code of Civil Procedure
section 1290.6,1 and no circumstances justify the equitable tolling
of that deadline or equitably estop Related from asserting that
deadline, the trial court did not err in confirming the award. We
therefore affirm.

      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2

      A.     The Arbitrator Dismisses All Claims Subject to
             Arbitration
      In August 2018, Ortiz filed a complaint against Related as
well as The Related Companies of California, LLC (collectively,
the Related Parties), alleging multiple employment causes of
action, including a claim under the Private Attorneys General
Act (PAGA). In October 2018, the Related Parties moved to
compel arbitration; Ortiz opposed the motion. In March 2019, the
court granted the motion as to all causes of action except for the
PAGA claim, which the court ordered stayed pending arbitration.
The parties proceeded to arbitrate before the Honorable Carlos R.
Moreno (ret.) at JAMS.

      1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil

Procedure.
      2 We limit our summary to the facts and procedural history

relevant to the issues raised on appeal.

                                 2
      In December 2019, Related moved for summary judgment
in the arbitration.3 Ortiz opposed the motion, Related replied,
and the arbitrator heard oral argument in December 2019. On
February 3, 2020, the arbitrator entered a final award, finding no
triable issues of material fact, granting Related’s motion, and
dismissing all of Ortiz’s claims with prejudice. The award was
served on all parties on February 6, 2020.

      B.     The Related Parties Seek to Confirm the Award;
             Ortiz Seeks to Vacate It
      On February 26, 2020, the Related Parties petitioned to
confirm the arbitration award. The petition was served on Ortiz
that same day. Two days later, the Related Parties gave notice
that their petition was to be heard on May 11, 2020.
      On February 27, 2020, Ortiz’s counsel submitted a
declaration informing the court that it had reserved a hearing
date of April 21, 2020, for a motion to vacate the arbitration
award. On March 4, 2020, the parties stipulated to reschedule
the hearing date to May 11, 2020, the same date the Related
Parties’ petition was to be heard. On April 17, 2020, the court
vacated the May 11, 2020 hearing dates and continued them to
July 15, 2020.

      3 It is unclear from the record why The Related Companies

of California, LLC did not also move for summary judgment, or
(as described below) why sometimes a pleading would be filed on
behalf of only Related, and other times a pleading would be filed
on behalf of both Related Parties. However, because no party
attributes any significance to these details, we do not address
them.

                                3
       On May 14, 2020, Ortiz filed a petition to vacate the
arbitration award. On May 27, 2020, Related opposed Ortiz’s
motion. Among its arguments was that the trial court “has no
power to vacate the Arbitrator’s award. Mr. Ortiz deprived this
Court of its jurisdiction to vacate the award when he failed to
respond to Related’s February 26, 2020 petition to confirm the
arbitration award within the 10-day filing and service deadline
set forth under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1290.6.”
       On July 1, 2020, Ortiz opposed the Related Parties’ petition
to confirm the arbitration award. In Related’s reply, it again
argued that Ortiz’s opposition was “simply too late” and that the
court lacked jurisdiction to vacate the award because Ortiz failed
to respond to the Related Parties’ petition within the 10-day
filing and service deadline.
       On July 8, 2020, Ortiz replied to Related’s opposition to his
motion to vacate. In response to Related’s untimeliness
argument, Ortiz did not dispute he had missed a jurisdictional
deadline but argued that “in anticipation that this Court might
agree that Plaintiff’s petition was untimely, Plaintiff
preemptively seeks relief under section 473(b).” Ortiz explained
that the timing of his petition to vacate was based on his
counsel’s reliance on section 1288, which provided a petition to
vacate an award was to be filed within 100 days of service of the
award. The reply further admitted that “Plaintiff’s counsel . . .
was unaware that if a party petitions the court to confirm an
arbitration award, a response seeking to vacate the award must
be filed within 10 days of the date the petition to confirm is
served, per Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.6.”

                                 4
      C.     The Court Confirms the Award
       On July 15, 2020, the trial court granted the Related
Parties’ petition and denied Ortiz’s petition. Citing section
1290.6, the court agreed that when a petition to confirm an
arbitration award had been filed, “any response seeking to vacate
the award must be filed within 10 days after service of the
petition.” The court found that while it “could excuse Plaintiff
from the failure to file” his request to vacate the award within
the 10-day deadline, it declined to do so here because Ortiz’s
counsel had “not provided any basis on which to excuse her
ignorance of the deadline in CCP § 1290.6.” The court also
explained that, even were it to overlook the procedural
deficiencies, Ortiz had “shown no basis on which to vacate the
award.”
       In September 2020, Ortiz filed a notice of appeal, stating he
was appealing “An Order Confirming Arbitration Award
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1285 et seq.” In
February 2022, we dismissed the appeal, finding the record
contained neither an appealable order nor judgment. (Ortiz v.
Related Mgmt. Co., L.P. (Feb. 23, 2022, B307902), 1–2.) We
issued a remittitur in April 2022.

      D.     The Court Enters Judgment
      In May 2022, the Related Parties moved for summary
judgment on the remaining PAGA claim, arguing that the
confirmed arbitrator’s award meant Ortiz was not an “aggrieved
employee,” and only an aggrieved employee could bring a PAGA
claim. In August 2022, Ortiz filed a notice of non-opposition,
agreeing that “if the arbitration award and court judgment on
other causes of action are confirmed on appeal, then [Ortiz’s
cause of action based on the] Private Attorney[s] General Act will

                                 5
fail on appeal.” In September 2022, the court granted the
Related Parties’ motion. In January 2023, the court entered
judgment in favor of “Defendants.” Ortiz timely appealed.

                            DISCUSSION
       “Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been
made may petition the court to confirm . . . the award.” (§ 1285.)
Should such a petition be filed, “[a] response shall be served and
filed within 10 days after service of the petition . . . .” (§ 1290.6.)
The court may not vacate an award unless a petition or response
requesting that the award be vacated or corrected “has been duly
served and filed.” (§ 1286.4, subds. (a) & (b).) A response is not
“duly served and filed” if not served and filed within 10 days of
service of the petition to confirm the award. (Rivera v. Shivers
(2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 82, 94 (Rivera).) It is undisputed that
Ortiz did not file a response to the Related Parties’ petition
within 10 days of service of the petition (instead, 78 days had
elapsed between the filing of the Related Parties’ petition and
Ortiz’s petition to vacate, and 124 days had elapsed between the
Related Parties’ petition and Ortiz’s response), and that the trial
court denied his request to vacate the award in part due to this
failure.
       Ortiz wholly failed to address this basis for the court’s
order in his opening brief, arguing instead that the arbitrator’s
award “violated Appellant’s unwaivable statutory rights and
contravened explicit legislative expression of public policy.” After
Related raised the timeliness issue in its opening brief, Ortiz
responded in his reply brief, arguing that: (a) his “case is distinct
from the Rivera case as the lower court in this case retained its
authority”; and (b) our Supreme Court held in Law Finance

                                  6
Group, LLC v. Key (2023) 14 Cal.5th 932 (Law Finance Group)
that “a lower court may retain its authority, thereby not barring
it from hearing an appeal on jurisdictional grounds.”
       Preliminarily, we find Ortiz has forfeited these arguments
for two reasons. First, Ortiz did not contend in the trial court
that the 10-day deadline was not jurisdictional—he argued only
that the court should grant him relief under section 473 for
missing the deadline. Generally, “ ‘issues not raised in the trial
court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.’ ” (Johnson v.
Greenelsh (2009) 47 Cal.4th 598, 603.) Ortiz does not contend
that the court erred in denying his request for relief under section
473. Second, Ortiz failed to raise these arguments until his reply
brief in this court.4 (California Building Industry Assn. v. State
Water Resources Control Bd. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1032, 1050
[argument not raised until appellate reply brief forfeited].) Even
were we to consider his arguments, we would be unconvinced.

      A.     Ortiz Fails to Distinguish Rivera
       In Rivera, the respondent did not respond to the appellants’
petition to confirm an arbitration award until two months after it
was filed. (Rivera, supra, 54 Cal.App.5th at p. 88.) The appellate
court found that, because the respondent failed to respond within
the 10-day period specified in section 1290.6, the trial court could
not consider the response. (Id. at p. 94.)
       In his reply brief, Ortiz argued that Rivera is
distinguishable because “the lower court in this case retained its
authority.” To the extent we understand this argument, Ortiz

      4 Though our Supreme Court did not issue its opinion in

Law Finance Group until June 2023, Ortiz’s opening brief was
not filed until September 2023.

                                 7
appears to contend that we should not follow Rivera because, in
Rivera, confirming the arbitration award would have disposed of
all claims before the superior court whereas, in the instant case,
even if the court confirmed the arbitration award, the court still
had jurisdiction because of Ortiz’s PAGA claim. Ortiz fails to
explain, and we do not see, why this should make any difference
as to whether the trial court could or should have entertained an
opposition filed outside the section 1290.6 deadline. Ortiz has
therefore forfeited this argument. (WFG National Title Ins. Co. v.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 881, 894 [“In order
to demonstrate error, an appellant must supply the reviewing
court with some cogent argument supported by legal
analysis . . . . Similarly, we may disregard conclusory arguments
that are not supported by pertinent legal authority”].)

      B.     Equitable Tolling and Equitable Estoppel Do
             Not Apply
       We are also unconvinced by Ortiz’s second argument. In
Law Finance Group, nine days after the plaintiff had filed a
petition to confirm an arbitration award, counsel for both parties
acknowledged the defendant’s response was due the next day but
“agreed to extend the time for response.” (Law Finance Group,
supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 943.) “The attorneys further agreed to
coordinate a hearing date so that the trial court could consider
both [plaintiff]’s petition to confirm and [defendant]’s petition to
vacate at the same time, and to set a briefing schedule for both
petitions corresponding to that date.” (Id. at pp. 943–944.) The
defendant ended up filing her petition to vacate, as well as her
response to the plaintiff’s petition to confirm, well outside section

                                  8
1288.2’s 100-day time limit.5 (Id. at p. 944.) While the trial court
deemed the petition to vacate untimely under section 1288.2, it
found the response to the petition to confirm timely under section
1290.6 in light of the attorneys’ agreement to extend the deadline
to respond. (Id. at pp. 944–945.) The appellate court reversed,
holding that section 1288.2’s 100-day time limit was
jurisdictional and could not be extended by the parties. (Id. at p.
945.) Our Supreme Court disagreed, holding that section 1288.2
was “a nonjurisdictional statute of limitations that is subject to
equitable tolling and equitable estoppel.” (Id. at pp. 959–960.)
Our high court remanded the case to the appellate court to
consider “whether equitable considerations should excuse
[defendant]’s failure to comply with the statutory deadline.” (Id.
at p. 960.)
       Though not entirely clear, Ortiz appears to be arguing that
we should analogously hold that section 1290.6’s 10-day limit is
also not jurisdictional, and thus the court could have considered
his request to vacate the arbitration award despite his untimely
filing. We disagree.
       Ortiz has provided, and we have found, no cases applying
Law Finance Group’s holding to section 1290.6. But we need not
decide whether the time limit provided in section 1290.6 is
jurisdictional. Assuming, without deciding, that it is not, Law
Finance Group dictates we must then consider whether the
deadline was equitably tolled, or whether equitable estoppel

      5 (§ 1288.2 [“A response requesting that an award be

vacated or that an award be corrected shall be served and filed
not later than 100 days after the date of service of a signed copy
of the award”].)

                                 9
prevented the Related Parties from asserting it. Neither
equitable doctrine applies.
        Unlike in Law Finance Group, Ortiz and the Related
Parties did not agree to extend the deadline to file a response to
the petition to confirm. Indeed, Ortiz admitted that he failed to
file a timely response to the Related Parties’ petition because his
counsel “was unaware that if a party petitions the court to
confirm an arbitration award, a response seeking to vacate the
award must be filed within 10 days of the date the petition to
confirm is served, per Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.6.” The trial court
found this to be an invalid excuse and Ortiz has not argued it
erred in doing so.
        Instead, Ortiz argues that, within ten days of the Related
Parties’ petition, he reserved a hearing date for his petition to
vacate the award, then submitted an oral stipulation to the court
to reschedule the petition to vacate to the same day as the
hearing for the Related Parties’ petition to confirm the award,
and finally filed the petition to vacate within the 100-day limit
set forth in section 1288.2. We are unpersuaded.
        While Ortiz did file his petition to vacate within the 100-
day deadline, “[i]f a petition to confirm the award is filed fewer
than 90 days after an award is served, a competing request to
vacate or correct the award—whether styled as a response to the
petition to confirm or as a standalone petition—must be filed and
served within 10 days of service of the petition to confirm, even if
that due date is less than 100 days after service of the award.”
(Darby v. Sisyphian, LLC (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 1100, 1110,
italics in original, fn. omitted.) To hold otherwise “would
effectively negate the 10-day deadline since any party who

                                10
missed the 10-day deadline could simply restyle their untimely
response as a standalone petition . . . .” (Id. at p. 1110, fn. 7.)6
       Nor does Ortiz explain why informing the Related Parties
that he had reserved a hearing date for his petition to vacate, or
stipulating to move that hearing date to the same day as the
Related Parties’ petition to confirm, would either equitably toll
section 1290.6’s 10-day deadline or equitably estop the Related
Parties from asserting that his failure to comply with that
deadline rendered his untimely response fatally deficient.
Neither action hindered Ortiz from filing his opposition in a
timely manner, nor reasonably led him into thinking he need not
do so.
       Because we find the trial court did not err in denying
Ortiz’s request to vacate the arbitration award due to the
untimeliness of his response filing, we need not and do not
consider his other contentions of error on appeal.

      6 Our Supreme Court explicitly declined to address this

issue in Law Finance Group. (Law Finance Group, supra, 14
Cal.5th at p. 947, fn. 2 [“We need not and do not decide whether a
party that fails to file a timely response under section 1290.6 may
nevertheless request vacatur in a petition to vacate filed within
the limitations period of section 1288”].)

                                 11
                       DISPOSITION
     The judgment is affirmed. Respondent is awarded its costs
on appeal.
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                                                  CHANEY, J.

We concur:

             BENDIX, Acting P. J.

             WEINGART, J.

                               12