Juarbe v. Jumbleberry Enterprises USA CA2/1, B314040

Background

Nutri‑burn, LLC contracted with Jumbleberry Enterprises under a Master Service Agreement (MSA) and an Insertion Order dated December 10, 2018; both documents list Nutri‑burn as Advertiser and Alberto Juarbe as Advertiser Owner/Representative, and Juarbe signed both.
MSA included clauses that (1) defined the “parties” to include the advertiser’s undersigned representative/owner, (2) made the undersigned signatory personally jointly and severally liable for unpaid invoices, and (3) contained an arbitration provision specifying forums and allowed service "electronically."
Jumbleberry performed services and invoiced Nutri‑burn $128,820.23; Jumbleberry demanded arbitration (ICDR/AAA) on June 5, 2019; Nutri‑burn and Juarbe did not participate despite receiving notices.
Arbitrator issued a partial/final award in favor of Jumbleberry on November 5, 2019, finding Nutri‑burn and Juarbe jointly/severally liable and awarding $136,845.23 (fees included); award was served November 6, 2019 (by email and Federal Express).
Juarbe filed a petition to vacate the award on February 10, 2020 (filed within 100 days) but did not serve it until August 4, 2020; trial court held his petition untimely because statute requires both filing and service within 100 days, confirmed the award, and entered judgment; this appeal followed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Juarbe)	Defendant's Argument (Jumbleberry)	Held
Timeliness of petition to vacate	Petition filed within 100 days, so timely; service requirement not triggered because award was not properly served	Award was properly served per MSA (including email); statute requires both filing and service within 100 days	Petition untimely: filing alone insufficient — both filing and service must occur within 100 days; Juarbe served >5 months late, so court precluded from vacating award
Whether Juarbe was personally bound by the MSA	Signed only as Nutri‑burn’s representative; did not intend personal liability	MSA expressly makes the undersigned representative/owner a party and personally liable	Juarbe personally bound: MSA unambiguously included the undersigned representative as a party and imposed personal liability
Validity of alternative service (email/overnight) for award	Award wasn’t served as §1283.6 requires (personal or registered/certified mail)	MSA authorizes alternate service methods including electronic delivery and overnight service; §1283.6 permits service “as provided in the agreement”	Service by email was authorized by the MSA; Juarbe received award by email, so statutory clock ran
Mutuality/consideration defense to enforceability	MSA unenforceable against him for lack of mutuality and lack of consideration	Contract provided mutual promises (services vs. payment and guaranty); even if no separate consideration to Juarbe, surety/guarantor principles apply	MSA enforceable: mutuality present and/or guarantor rules (Civ. Code §2792) render separate consideration unnecessary

Key Cases Cited

Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase, 3 Cal.4th 1 (1992) (arbitral finality and limited judicial review of private arbitration awards)
Richey v. AutoNation, Inc., 60 Cal.4th 909 (2015) (California favors alternative dispute resolution)
Moshonov v. Walsh, 22 Cal.4th 771 (2000) (judicial review of arbitration awards limited to statutory grounds)
Founding Members of the Newport Beach Country Club v. Newport Beach Country Club, Inc., 109 Cal.App.4th 944 (2003) (contract interpretation governed by objective written terms)
Bleecher v. Conte, 29 Cal.3d 345 (1981) (mutuality of obligation doctrine explained)
Darby v. Sisyphian, LLC, 87 Cal.App.5th 1100 (2023) (deadline rules: requests to vacate must comply with 100‑day limit)
Douglass v. Serenivision, Inc., 20 Cal.App.5th 376 (2018) (response requesting vacatur still subject to statutory 100‑day deadline)
Law Finance Group, LLC v. Key, 67 Cal.App.5th 307 (2021) (sections 1288/1288.2 establish firm 100‑day deadline for vacatur requests)