Carlton v. Front Porch Communities and Services CA2/1

Opinion

Filed 8/31/26 Carlton v. Front Porch Communities and Services CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

PATRICIA HALL CARLTON et al., B343944 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 20STCV29356) v. FRONT PORCH COMMUNITIES AND SERVICES INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Kerry R. Bensinger, Judge. Affirmed. Elder Protection Attorneys and John F. Mounier for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Tracy D. Forbath, Ernest Slome, Daniel R. Velladao, Rima M. Badawiya and Mark A. Schadrack for Defendants and Respondents.

________________________________ Appellants Patricia Hall Carlton and Richard Hall contend the trial court erred in denying their request to vacate an arbitration award in favor of respondents Front Porch Communities and Services, Inc., Randy Herzig, Nadine Roisman, and Pamela Lowe. We hold that because appellants failed to respond to respondents’ motion to confirm the award within the 10-day time limit specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.6,1 the trial court did not err in confirming the award. We therefore affirm.

BACKGROUND2 Appellants sued respondents essentially for elder abuse, alleging respondents evicted appellants’ mother, Mildred Hall, from a continuing care facility in retaliation for appellants reporting the facility to the California Department of Social Services. The court granted respondents’ motion to compel arbitration. After appellants failed to initiate arbitration proceedings, respondents filed an arbitration demand with JAMS. Appellants filed a motion in the superior court to quash respondents’ arbitration demand, arguing for the first time that the arbitration agreement was void because California public policy prohibits arbitration provisions in tenancy agreements. The court denied the motion. After appellants failed to participate in arbitration, the arbitrator issued an award denying them relief. The arbitrator sanctioned appellants in the amount of $1,170 to compensate respondents’ attorney for 3.9 hours spent preparing for and 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 attending conferences that appellants failed to attend and seeking appellants’ compliance with discovery obligations. On November 20, 2023, respondents moved to confirm the arbitration award. Appellants filed their opposition to the motion 73 days later, on February 1, 2024, arguing the award should be vacated because the arbitration agreement was void. The court found appellants’ opposition and request to vacate were untimely under section 1286.4. Accordingly, the court confirmed the arbitration award. Appellants appealed.

DISCUSSION Appellants argue, as they did below, that (1) the trial court erred in confirming the arbitration award because the arbitration agreement was void as against public policy and (2) the arbitrator exceeded his authority. Respondents argue the trial court had no authority to entertain these arguments because appellants’ opposition to the motion to confirm the arbitration award was untimely. We agree with respondents. “Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm . . . the award.” (§ 1285.) Any response to such a petition “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.) It is undisputed that appellants filed no opposition to respondents’ motion to confirm the arbitration award until 73 days 3 after service of the motion. Because the opposition was untimely, the trial court had no authority to entertain it. Accordingly, the court did not err in confirming the award. At oral argument, appellants argued that their opposition was not untimely because a void contract, like a void judgment, can be challenged at any time. We have discovered no authority supporting that a void contract may be challenged at any time. Even if it could, the aggrieved party could not ignore a statutory deadline for appealing an adverse ruling on such a challenge. (See Pittman v. Beck Park Apartments Ltd. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 1009, 1021-1022, fn. 13 [the rule allowing an aggrieved party to challenge an order void on its face “at any time” does not mean a party may seek untimely reconsideration of an unfavorable ruling on that challenge].) Appellants’ failure to challenge the validity of the arbitration agreement within 10 days of respondents’ motion to confirm the arbitration award cannot be excused simply because the agreement is void. We do not reach appellants’ contention that the arbitrator exceeded his authority.

4 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. Respondents are awarded their costs on appeal. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

ROTHSCHILD, P. J. We concur:

WEINGART, J.

M. KIM, J.