Filed 9/22/26 Su Casa Properties v. Grieco CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SU CASA PROPERTIES, L.P., D085727
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 37-2023-
00049004 CU-BC-CTL)
v.
MOLLY CHEN GRIECO,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Joel R. Wohlfeil, Judge. Affirmed.
Molly Chen Grieco, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, Kendra J. Hall, and Megan E.
Dawson for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I
INTRODUCTION
Molly Chen Grieco appeals from a judgment entered after the trial
court confirmed an arbitration award against her and in favor of Su Casa
Properties, L.P. (hereafter, Su Casa). Grieco asks us to reverse the judgment
on the basis that she purportedly did not receive notice of the underlying
arbitration proceedings. We reject Grieco’s claim of error and affirm the
judgment.
II
BACKGROUND
A. Land Sale
Su Casa and Grieco executed a purchase and sale agreement requiring
Su Casa to sell vacant land in La Jolla to Grieco at a purchase price of $8.75
million. The agreement obligated Grieco to deposit three percent of the
purchase price ($262,500) into escrow, which Su Casa was allowed to retain
as a liquidated damages award if the land sale did not close due to a default
by Grieco. Grieco made the earnest deposit as required by the purchase and
sale agreement. A few weeks later, Grieco removed contingencies on the land
sale and relinquished her right to cancel the sale.
On the date escrow was scheduled to close, Su Casa issued a demand
on Grieco to close escrow within three days. Grieco did not respond to Su
Casa’s demand or pay the outstanding balance of the purchase price.
Therefore, Su Casa cancelled the purchase and sale agreement and asked the
escrow holder to release the earnest deposit as a liquidated damages award.
However, Grieco did not consent to the release of the earnest deposit to Su
Casa.
Therefore, Su Casa initiated mediation with Grieco under a clause in
the purchase and sale agreement requiring the parties to submit disputes or
claims arising out of the agreement to mediation before resorting to
arbitration or court action. The mediation request was served on Grieco at
her last known physical address and emailed to her last known email
address. Grieco did not participate in the mediation.
2
B. Arbitration Proceedings
Su Casa filed a complaint in the Superior Court for the County of San
Diego asserting breach of contract and declaratory relief causes of action
against Grieco based on her alleged failure to satisfy her obligations under
the purchase and sale agreement. The complaint sought declaratory and
injunctive relief requiring Grieco to submit to arbitration with Su Casa
pursuant to an arbitration clause in the purchase and sale agreement. The
complaint also requested liquidated damages in the amount of $262,500.
Grieco’s then-attorney, Babak Samini, acknowledged receipt of the summons
and complaint.1
After filing suit, Su Casa moved to compel arbitration under the
arbitration clause of the purchase and sale agreement. The proof of service
for the motion indicates the motion was served on Samini. Grieco did not
oppose the motion, and no one attended the motion hearing on Grieco’s
behalf. The trial court granted the motion and stayed the matter pending
arbitration.
Su Casa thereafter demanded arbitration of its claims with JAMS.
Notice of the arbitration demand was sent to Grieco at her last known
physical address and emailed to her last known email address.
JAMS appointed Charles H. Dick as the arbitrator for the matter. The
arbitrator conducted a preliminary hearing, which Grieco did not attend. The
arbitrator continued the hearing to a later date to ensure Grieco’s
participation, but she did not attend the continued hearing either. At the
continued hearing, Su Casa’s counsel asked the arbitrator to resolve the
1 At some unknown date after Samini acknowledged receipt on behalf of
Grieco, he informed Su Casa’s counsel that he no longer represented Grieco.
3
dispute based solely on the parties’ forthcoming written submissions. The
arbitrator granted the request and served Grieco with notice of his ruling at
her last physical address and her last known email address. Thereafter,
Su Casa filed a written brief and evidence to support its position that it was
owed $262,500 in liquidated damages. Grieco did not file a written
submission or otherwise participate in the arbitration.
The arbitrator issued a final award in favor of Su Casa. Relevant here,
the arbitrator found Grieco received mail at her last known physical mailing
address, the purchase and sale agreement required Grieco to buy the
property after she removed the buyer’s contingencies, Grieco did not deposit
the balance of the purchase price for the property or consent to a close of
escrow, and a liquidated damages award equal to three percent of the
purchase price was a fair result because it reasonably approximated “the
injury likely to have been incurred because of [Grieco’s] default.” Therefore,
the arbitrator ordered Grieco to pay Su Casa a liquidated damages award of
$262,500, plus prejudgment interest. The arbitrator also found Su Casa was
the prevailing party and awarded Su Casa its attorney’s fees and costs.
C. Confirmation of the Arbitration Award
Su Casa filed a petition to confirm the arbitration award in the trial
court, which it served on Samini and Grieco. Su Casa also filed and served a
separate noticed motion asking the court to confirm the arbitration award
and enter judgment.
Sixty-one days after Su Casa filed and served its petition to confirm the
arbitration award, and three days before the hearing on Su Casa’s noticed
motion, Grieco filed a response asking the court to vacate the arbitration
award. In her three-page response, Grieco argued that she never received
notice of the motion to compel arbitration, the court order compelling
4
arbitration, or any of the arbitration proceedings. She claimed her alleged
lack of notice deprived her of an opportunity to participate in the arbitration,
and confirmation of the arbitration award would violate her due process
rights. She did not argue that her last known physical address and email
address were incorrect, nor did she provide updated means to contact her.
Grieco’s response included a signature block for an attorney, Bruce Wilson,
but the brief was undated and unsigned.
The trial court issued a tentative ruling granting Su Casa’s petition to
confirm the arbitration award. In its tentative ruling, the court stated that it
declined to consider Grieco’s response because it was untimely,
unaccompanied by a proof of service, and unsigned by Grieco’s attorney. The
court also found the response lacked “substantive merit” because Samini
signed the notice and acknowledgment of receipt of the summons and
complaint on Grieco’s behalf, Grieco did not attest that Samini had stopped
representing her in the court action, and the court filings were served on
Samini at the physical address he had listed on his State Bar profile.
The trial court held a hearing on the motion, which Su Casa attended
remotely through its counsel and Grieco attended remotely through her
counsel, Wilson. After the hearing, which was not reported, the court
confirmed its tentative ruling and granted the motion to confirm the
arbitration award. The court entered judgment for Su Casa and ordered
Grieco to pay Su Casa $262,250 in liquidated damages, $28,165 in
prejudgment interest, and $70,038 in attorney’s fees and costs.
III
DISCUSSION
Grieco challenges the order confirming the arbitration award in favor of
Su Casa. Her sole argument is that she did not have notice of the arbitration
5
or an opportunity to appear at the arbitration. According to Grieco, this
alleged lack of notice violated her constitutional due process rights and
rendered “the entire [arbitration] proceeding void and unenforceable.”
“ ‘To prevail on appeal, an appellant must establish both error and
prejudice from that error. [Citation.] In order to demonstrate error, an
appellant must supply the reviewing court with some cogent argument
supported by legal analysis and citation to the record. Rather than scour the
record unguided, we may decide that the appellant has forfeited a point urged
on appeal when it is not supported by accurate citations to the record.’ ”
(Champir, LLC v. Fairbanks Ranch Assn. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 583, 597; see
also United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th
142, 146 [“ ‘an appellant must supply the reviewing court with some cogent
argument supported by legal analysis and citation to the record’ ”].)2 Grieco
does not provide any citations to the record to support her unsubstantiated
claim that she failed to receive notice of the underlying arbitration. For this
reason alone, we conclude Grieco has forfeited her claim of error.
Even if Grieco had supported her argument with citations to the record,
we would still affirm the judgment. Su Casa petitioned to confirm the
2 These principles of appellate practice apply to Grieco, even though she
is a self-represented litigant. “ ‘[S]uch a party is to be treated like any other
party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other
litigants and attorneys.’ ” (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1247.)
“[W]hen a litigant accepts the risks of proceeding without counsel, he or she
is stuck with the outcome, and has no greater opportunity to cast off an
unfavorable judgment than he or she would if represented by counsel.”
(Burnete v. La Casa Dana Apartments (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1267.)
6
arbitration award under Code of Civil Procedure section 1285,3 which states,
in part, “Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may
petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award.” Grieco raised the
issue of her alleged lack of notice in her response to the petition, which she
filed under section 1286. Section 1286 states, in part, “If a … response under
this chapter is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as
made … unless in accordance with this chapter it corrects the award and
confirms it as corrected, vacates the award or dismisses the proceeding.”
The trial court properly disregarded Grieco’s response for several
reasons. The response was untimely because it was filed more than 10 days
after service of the petition to confirm the arbitration award and there was no
showing or finding of good cause to extend Grieco’s filing deadline. (See
§ 1290.6 [“A response shall be served and filed within 10 days after service of
the petition,” subject to an extension for good cause].) The response was also
ineffective because it was unaccompanied by proof of service. Further, the
response was flawed because Wilson, the attorney who purported to
represent Grieco at the time of the filing, did not sign the response. (See
§ 128.7, subd. (a) [“Every pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other
similar paper shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the
attorney’s individual name …. An unsigned paper shall be stricken unless
omission of the signature is corrected promptly after being called to the
attention of the attorney or party.”].)
Due to these defects, the trial court properly declined to consider the
response, which was not “duly served and filed,” and Grieco is deemed to
3 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil
Procedure.
7
have admitted the allegations of Su Casa’s petition to confirm the arbitration
award. (§ 1290; see Rivera v. Shivers (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 82, 94 [“Because
[the] response to the petition to confirm was not filed and served within 10
days of the petition, it was not ‘duly served and filed’ ”]; Evans Products Co. v.
Millmen’s Union No. 550 (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 815, 819 [“Since the
[defendant’s] response was not duly served and filed, the court below properly
concluded that the allegations of [plaintiff’s] petition were deemed to be
admitted by the [defendant].”].) Because the court properly disregarded
Grieco’s untimely and procedurally flawed response, Grieco has failed to
demonstrate that the trial court erred by granting Su Casa’s petition to
confirm the arbitration award.4
IV
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondent is awarded its appellate costs.
McCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, J.
KELETY, J.
4 Given our conclusions that Grieco forfeited her claim of error and the
trial court correctly disregarded her untimely response to the petition to
confirm the arbitration award, we do not address Su Casa’s alternative
claims that we should affirm the judgment because lack of notice is not a
proper basis for vacating an arbitration award under section 1286 and, in any
event, Grieco had notice and an opportunity to participate in the arbitration.
8