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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not
been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.
5