1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WELLS FARGO ADVISORS, LLC, Case No.: 21-CV-844-GPC-BLM

12 Petitioner,

ORDER CONFIRMING

13 v. ARBITRATION AWARD

14 KATIE REBECCA BLANDO, [ECF No. 1] 15 Respondent. 16 17 Before the Court is Petitioner Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC’s Petition to Confirm 18 Arbitration Award against Respondent Katie Rebecca Blando. ECF No. 1. On June 4, 19 2021, Petitioner filed a Declaration and Affidavit stating that Respondent was personally 20 served with the Petition. ECF No. 6. On July 2, 2021, the Court ordered that 21 Respondent’s response in opposition to the Petition was due on August 13, 2021, and 22 Petitioner’s reply was due on September 3, 2021. ECF No. 7. To date, Respondent has 23 not filed any response in opposition to the Petition. 24 For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion. Further, the 25 Court finds this motion suitable for disposition without oral argument pursuant to Civil 26 Local Rule 7.1 (d)(1) and VACATES the hearing on this matter. 27 1 Factual and Procedural Background 2 Petitioner Wells Fargo1 and Respondent Katie Rebecca Blando entered into a valid 3 and enforceable Confidential Settlement Agreement and General Release (“Agreement”) 4 on June 29, 2015. ECF No. 1-2 at 11; see also ECF No. 1 at 3. In the intervening years, 5 Respondent failed to pay the balance she owed Petitioner by the terms of the Settlement 6 Agreement, thus defaulting on the Agreement. The Agreement provides that “[i]n the 7 event of default, Blando stipulates to an award equal to the balance owing on the 8 payments in paragraph 2. Upon default, Wells Fargo may file a statement of claim and 9 stipulated award with FINRA, and attach this settlement agreement thereto.” ECF No. 1 10 at 2-3. Respondent also “agree[d] not to contest the confirmation of the FINRA award in 11 state or federal court, after which the award shall be fully enforceable against Blando.” 12 Id. at 3. Wells Fargo filed its Statement of Claim with FINRA on July 15, 2020, 13 beginning the process by which Wells Fargo could recover the balance Respondent owed 14 per the terms of the Agreement. ECF No. 1-7, Crisp Decl. ¶ 6. 15 On March 2, 2021, the arbitration was conducted virtually over Zoom (due to the 16 ongoing COVID-19 pandemic) before three Arbitrators.2 ECF No. 1 at 4. Respondent 17 did not enter an appearance at the arbitration. ECF No. 1-6, Ex. 5 at 2. However, 18 because “all reasonable efforts were made to serve Respondent,” the Arbitrators 19 “determined that Respondent is, therefore, bound by the Panel’s ruling and 20 determination.” Id. at 3. On March 26, 2021, the Arbitrators served the Arbitration 21

22 23 1 As Petitioner explains in its motion, Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC changed its name to Wells Fargo Clearing Services in or around November 2016, after Petitioner and 24 Respondent executed the Settlement Agreement. ECF No. 1 at 1 n.1. For simplicity, the 25 Court uses “Wells Fargo” when referring to Petitioner. 26 2 See ECF Nos. 1-3, 1-4, and 1-5 for Arbitrators Randall Christison, Kevin Forrester, and Gunnar Thowsen’s Oath of Arbitrator and Disclosure Checklist forms. 27 1 Award finding that Respondent was liable to Wells Fargo for the sum of $127,500 in 2 compensatory damages, 10% per annum interest on those damages, along with $1,150 in 3 costs and $52,790.40 in attorneys’ fees. ECF No. 1 at 4; ECF No. 1-6, Ex. 5. 4 Petitioner has asked this Court to confirm the Arbitration Award that was decided 5 upon in the March 2021 arbitration. ECF No. 1. 6 Discussion 7 Federal courts have jurisdiction to confirm an arbitration award if the award meets 8 either diversity or federal question requirements. Here, Petitioner and Respondent are 9 diverse because Wells Fargo is not a citizen of California and Respondent is a citizen of 10 either California or Nevada,3 and the award for which Petitioner seeks confirmation 11 exceeds the $75,000 minimum requirement. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 12 The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) requires federal judges to recognize the 13 enforceability of an award issued under the FAA’s authority. See Southland Corp. v. 14 Keating, 465 U.S. 1, 12 (holding that section two of the FAA applies in state and federal 15 courts). The effect of the district court’s order confirming the award is that upon issuing 16 the order, the court converts the Award into a judgment. The Supreme Court held in 17 Southland that the FAA established a “broad principle of enforceability.” Id. at 11. 18 Under the FAA, “any time within one year after the award is made any party to the 19 arbitration may apply to the court so specified for an order confirming the award.” 9 20 U.S.C. § 9. At that time “the court must grant such an order unless the award is vacated, 21 modified, or corrected.” Id. Section 9 also requires that notice of the application be 22 served upon the adverse party. 9 U.S.C. §9. 23 Petitioner filed its motion on April 30, 2021, well within one year of the March 26, 24 2021 Award. ECF No. 1. The instant motion to confirm the award is timely under the 25

26 3 See ECF No. 1-8, Crisp Decl., Ex. A. 27 1 ||FAA. See 9 U.S.C. § 9. After a lengthy search, Petitioner was able to personally serve 2 || Respondent with notice of the motion to confirm the Award, fulfilling the FAA’s 3 || personal service requirement. ECF No. 6. 4 Conclusion 5 Nothing in the record suggests that Petitioner has failed to satisfy the requirements 6 || for seeking confirmation of an arbitration award. Petitioner is therefore entitled to this 7 || Court’s confirmation of the award. The Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to compel 8 Award, and hereby converts the Arbitrators’ Award into an enforceable judgment. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: October 6, 2021 <=

12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21-CV-844-GPC-BLM