Tulare Golf Course, LLC v. Vantage Tag, Inc.; Arrow Capital Solutions, Inc.; U.S. Bank National Association; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: May 11, 2026
• Docket: 1:21-cv-00505
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 TULARE GOLF COURSE, LLC, a Case No. 1:21-cv-00505-JLT-EGC California Limited Liability Company, 10 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO Plaintiff, CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD AND 11 v. ENTER JUDGMENT 12 VANTAGE TAG, INC., a Canadian (Doc. 91) business entity of unknown form; ARROW 13 CAPITAL SOLUTIONS, INC., a Texas corporation; U.S. BANK NATIONAL 14 ASSOCIATION, a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 On March 25, 2021, Tulare Golf Course, a California limited company, initiated this 19 action against, inter alia, Vintage Tag, a Canadian business entity. (Doc. 1.)1 In the Second 20 Amended Complaint, Plaintiff raises the following causes of action: (1) breach of contraction and 21 rejection of non-conforming goods; (2) breach of express warranty; (3) breach of implied 22 warranty of merchantability and fitness; (4) fraud; and (5) equitable indemnification; and (6) 23 declaratory relief. (See generally Doc. 52.) 24 On March 21, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration as to 25 Plaintiff Tulare Golf Course and stayed the case pending final resolution of arbitration. (Doc. 58.) 26 On April 9, 2025, Arbitrator Rebecca Callahan signed the Final Award. (Doc. 91-4.) 27 On December 3, 2025, Defendant filed the instant motion to confirm arbitration award and

28 1 enter judgment. (See generally Doc. 91-1.) Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or notice of non- 2 opposition. 3 For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the instant motion. 4 II. CONFIRMATION OF THE ARBITRATION AWARD 5 A. Legal Standard 6 Under the Federal Arbitration Act, a party to an arbitration agreement that has “agreed 7 that a judgment of the court shall be entered upon the award made pursuant to the arbitration . . . 8 may apply to the court so specified for an order confirming the award.” 9 U.S.C. § 9. The party 9 must apply for a motion to confirm “within one year after the award is made.” Id. A court “must 10 grant such an order unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed in sections 11 10 and 11” of the FAA. Id. “The only bases to vacate [or modify] an award are: (1) fraud or 12 corruption in procuring the award; (2) partiality or corruption of the arbitrator; (3) arbitrator 13 misconduct prejudicing a party; (4) the arbitrator exceeded his power; or (5) evident material 14 mistake or miscalculation in the award.” Millan v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 533 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 15 1068 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (citing 9 U.S.C. §§ 10, 11); see also Bosack v. Soward, 586 F.3d 1096, 16 1104 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Arbitrators exceed their powers when they express a manifest disregard of 17 law, or when they issue an award that is completely irrational.” (citation and quotation marks 18 omitted)). Stated differently, the court may only vacate, modify, or correct the award if there is a 19 technical error, any or all of the award is not subject to arbitration, or the award “evidences 20 affirmative misconduct in the arbitral process or the final result that is completely irrational or 21 exhibits a manifest disregard for the law.” See Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Servs., 22 Inc., 341 F.3d 987, 997 (9th Cir. 2003); see also 9 U.S.C. §§ 10–11. “[T]hese standards are highly 23 deferential to the arbitrator.” Johnson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., 635 F.3d 401, 414 (9th 24 Cir. 2011). 25 B. Discussion 26 Defendant filed the motion to confirm within one year of the issuance of the arbitration 27 award. (Doc. 91-1 at 4.) The Court finds no obvious indication of technical errors, issues beyond 28 the scope of arbitration, affirmative misconduct, or an arbitral process or result that is irrational or 1 | disregards the law. Further, Plaintiff did not file any opposition to Defendant’s motion and 2 || appears not to contest its validity. In light of these factors and the high level of deference courts 3 | give to the Arbitrator, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to confirm the arbitration award. 4 WI. INTEREST 5 Additionally, Defendant seeks two forms of interest on the award: (1) post-award, pre- 6 | judgment interest, and (2) post-judgment interest. In general, post-award, pre-judgment interest is 7 | governed by state law. Northrop Corp. v. Triad Int’] Marketing, 842 F.2d 1154, 1155 (9th Cir. 8 | 1998). Under California Civil Code § 3287, Defendant “is entitled to post-award prejudgment 9 | interest as a matter of right.” Riley v. QuantumScape Corp., No. 22-cv-03871-BLF, 2023 WL 10 | 1475092 (N.D. Cal. February 2, 2023) (citing Pierotti v. Torian, 81 Cal. App. 4th 17 (Cal. Ct. 11 | App. 2000)). “[OJnce an arbitration award is confirmed in federal court, the rate specified in [28 12 | U.S.C.] § 1961 applies.” Fid. Fed. Bank, F.S.B. v. Durga Ma Corp., 387 F.3d 1021, 1024 (9th 13 | Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). The request for post-award, prejudgment interest and the request for 14 | post-judgment interest are GRANTED. 15 IV. CONCLUSION 16 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 17 (1) Defendant’s motion to confirm arbitration award and enter judgment (Doc. 155) is 18 GRANTED and the action is DISMISSED with PREJUDICE. 19 (2) The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 | Dated: _May 11, 2026 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28