Opinion
E080401
08-08-2024
JERMAINE A. GRAVES, SR., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., Defendant and Respondent.
Jermaine A. Graves, Sr., in pro per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Yu | Mohandesi, Jordan S. Yu, and Lisa M. Lawrence, for Defendant and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. CIVSB2210249 Janet M. Frangie, Judge. Affirmed.
Jermaine A. Graves, Sr., in pro per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Yu | Mohandesi, Jordan S. Yu, and Lisa M. Lawrence, for Defendant and Respondent.
OPINION
MENETREZ J.
Jermaine Graves, Sr., appeals from the trial court's order denying his petition to correct an arbitration award and confirming the unmodified award. We agree with the trial court that Graves's petition was untimely, and we therefore affirm.
BACKGROUND
In 2020, Graves filed an arbitration demand with the American Arbitration Association (AAA) against Santander Consumer USA, Inc. (Santander), which he later amended. Graves alleged that Santander engaged in fraudulent business practices in relation to the financing of a car that Graves purchased in 2015. Graves sought $50 million in damages. Santander filed a counterclaim, seeking $15,501.84 for the outstanding balance that Graves owed on the car loan.
On June 14, 2021, the arbitrator issued an award in which it denied Graves's claims and awarded Santander $15,501.84. AAA served Graves and Santander with the award on that same day.
Over one year later, on August 17, 2022, Graves filed a petition to correct the arbitration award. Santander opposed the petition and requested that the court confirm the award. The court denied Graves's petition to correct the award, finding that it was untimely because it was filed after the 100-day deadline under Code of Civil Procedure section 1288 (unlabeled statutory references are to this code). The court granted Santander's request to confirm the arbitration award and entered judgment accordingly.
The August 2022 filing is an amended petition. Graves filed a prior petition on May 25, 2022, but the superior court's register of actions does not identify the nature of the petition. That petition is not included in the record on appeal.
In his opening brief, Graves moves to augment the record with a declaration that he filed in the trial court. We deny the motion because the declaration is not relevant to any issues in this appeal.
Graves contends that the trial court erred by denying his petition to correct the arbitration award. The argument lacks merit.
"Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award." (§ 1285.) A petition to vacate or correct the award "shall be served and filed not later than 100 days after the date of the service of a signed copy of the award on the petitioner." (§ 1288; Law Finance Group, LLC v. Key (2023) 14 Cal.5th 932, 946.) We independently review the trial court's rulings on questions of law if the facts are undisputed. (Cooper v. Lavely &Singer Professional Corp. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1, 12.)
AAA served Graves with the arbitration award on June 14, 2021. Graves filed a petition to correct the award on August 17, 2022, 429 days after he was served with the award. Because the petition to correct the arbitration award was filed more than 100 days after it was served, the petition was untimely and was correctly denied. (§ 1288.)
Assuming for the sake of argument that the petition that Graves filed on May 25, 2022, was a petition to correct the award, that petition also was untimely because it was filed 345 days after AAA served Graves with the award. (§ 1288.)
Graves's only argument concerning the timeliness of the petition is unavailing. In his reply brief, Graves contends that on September 10, 2021, he filed a petition to correct the arbitration award with AAA, and that filing was before the 100-day deadline. The argument is forfeited because it was raised for the first time in the reply brief and Graves has not shown good cause for not making the argument sooner. (People v. Newton (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1005.) The argument is additionally forfeited because Graves does not cite anything in the record to support it. (Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).) In any event, the argument fails on the merits. Assuming for the sake of argument that Graves filed a petition with AAA before the 100-day deadline, that does not satisfy section 1288. Under section 1288, the petition to correct the award must be filed with the court, not the arbitral forum, within 100 days of service of the award. (§§ 1285, 1288.)
Although we are not obliged to search the record unguided (Meridian Financial Services, Inc. v. Phan (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 657, 684), we note that the only place in the record in which the September 10, 2021, date appears is in appellant's notice designating the record. That was not sufficient for Graves to raise the argument before the trial court, so the argument is also forfeited because Graves did not make it first in the trial court. (Newton v. Clemons (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1, 11.)
We need not address the arguments made by Graves in the opening brief, because the arguments have no tendency to show that the petition was timely or that it should have been granted despite being untimely.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Santander shall recover its costs of appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(2).)
We concur: RAMIREZ P. J., McKINSTER J.