MFAA, Deadlines: Missing Deadline For Serving Petition To Vacate Was Not Jurisdictional Under Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act

And The Court Also Decides An Issue Of First Impression Concerning Adequacy Of Service.

        The Appellate Division of the Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, addressed Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (MFAA) issues in Folke v. Pulliam (10/6/23). In an employment dispute, Pulliam, the client, hired attorney Folke to assist Pulliam's attorney Akinyemi. Afterwards she arbitrated a fee dispute under California's MFAA with Folke, and received a favorable award. The MFAA offers clients an expeditious way to arbitrate attorney fee disputes, and if no one timely challenges the fee award, it becomes final.

        The fee award here became final after 30 days, because no one requested a trial de novo. However, one has 100 days after service of the award to file and serve a petition to confirm, correct, or vacate the award. Folke filed a petition to vacate within the 100 day limit. However, the trial court determined he did not serve the petition within the 100 day deadline, and because that was "jurisdictional", Folke was stuck with the adverse award.

        The appellate division decided two issues. First, it addressed an issue of first impression: whether the rules governing service of a petition to vacate in an ordinary arbitration applied to an arbitration under the MFAA. Specifically, the question here was whether service by mail upon Pulliam's attorney Akinyemi was sufficient, where there had been no appearance yet in the court proceeding. The answer is that mail service was not sufficient.

        Folke's fallback argument relied on equitable tolling. The trial court had rejected an equitable tolling argument on the ground that the 100 day deadline was jurisdictional. The Appellate Division rejected the argument that the deadline was jurisdictional. So Folke will get another bite of the apple.

    BONUS. The court states that the elements of equitable tolling are: "(1) timely notice to the opposing party, (2) lack of prejudice to the opposing party, and (3) reasonable and good faith conduct by the moving party." Folke argues that he made numerous good faith efforts at service.