Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 23STCV04487, Date: 2023-11-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV04487 Hearing Date: November 16, 2023 Dept: 55
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Motion of Defendant to Compel Arbitration. Motion of Plaintiff to Compel Deposition Attendance
and Production of Documents by Defendant Hyundai Motor America’s Person Most
Knowledgeable; and Request For Sanctions In The Amount Of $2,566.75.
The motion to compel arbitration is granted.
The motion to compel deposition attendance is ordered
off calendar because the case is stayed pending arbitration.
Plaintiff and Defendant shall arbitrate the
controversies between them, including the entire Complaint, and the motion to
compel the deposition, in accordance with their agreement to arbitrate. This entire case is stayed until such
arbitration has been completed. The Court will set a post-arbitration status
conference.
On 3/1/23, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging that
Defendant Hyundai Motor America breached a warranty that it had attached to a
new 2022 Hyundai Tucson leased to Plaintiff by retail seller Keyes Hyundai of
Van Nuys, because the vehicle had serious defects including battery defects and
check engine warning light illumination. Based on these alleged defects,
Plaintiff sued Defendant under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act for
breach of the express and implied warranties that Defendant furnished to
Plaintiff in connection with the lease of the Subject Vehicle.
Defendant filed a motion to compel contractual
arbitration and to stay this action.
Plaintiff opposes arbitration, based on Defendant not being a party to
the car lease, and Defendant having unconscionably placed a warranty agreement
in the leased vehicle. Additionally, Plaintiff
filed a motion to compel a deposition of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable,
after nonattendance on the noticed date of 9/22/23, and Plaintiff seeks sanctions
in the amount of $2,566.75. Defendant expresses
willingness to meet and confer in good faith and to set a mutually agreeable
deposition date.
Motion to Compel Arbitration
Lease
Regarding Defendant’s standing to seek enforcement of
the nonparty’s lease agreement, the Court notes that the Complaint admits some
agency relationship between nonparty Keyes Hyundai and Defendant (Complaint,
¶18), and some participation in the leasing by subsidiaries related to
Defendant as parent (Ali Ameripour Decl.,
¶ 5, filed 6/1/23). However, because the
Court compels arbitration based upon the moving Defendant’s own arbitration
provisions in its warranty, the Court need not apply the arbitration provisions
of the nonparty’s lease agreement as discussed in recent case law including,
for example, Ford Motor Warranty
Cases (2nd Dist.
2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1324, 1334 and Jaquelyn Yeh v.
Superior Ct. (1st Dist. 2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 264, 294.
Warranty
Defendant contends that Plaintiff must arbitrate the claims
in this case pursuant to the parties’ agreement to arbitrate in the warranty. Plaintiff
leased the subject vehicle with a Motor Vehicle Lease Agreement requiring
Plaintiff to resolve any disputes relating or arising out of the Lease, the
Vehicle, or any resulting relationship by binding arbitration (Motion, p. 5). Defendant’s warranty accompanied the lease,
and the warranty also has an arbitration provision. (Id., see also
Ali Ameripour Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 3.) Plaintiff argues that the warranty was
unconscionable and take-it-or-leave-it.
“[F]reedom to choose whether or not to enter a
contract of adhesion is a factor weighing against a finding of procedural
unconscionability.” Gentry v. Sup.
Ct. (2007) 42 Cal. 4th 443, 470, abrogated on other grounds by Iskanian
v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2022) 59 Cal. 4th 348, 360; and Viking
River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 142 S. Ct. 1906.
Here, the Court finds that the moving party’s warranty
arbitration provisions are enforceable and not unconscionable, because the
warranty allowed Plaintiff the ability to take 30 days to read, to have
professionally reviewed, and to opt out via an easy email address, via language
such as the following excerpt:
IF YOU PURCHASED OR
LEASED YOUR VEHICLE IN CALIFORNIA, YOUR WARRANTY IS MADE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS
OF THIS BINDING ARBITRATION PROVISION BY USING THE VEHICLE, OR REQUESTING OR
ACCEPTING BENEFITS UNDER THIS WARRANTY, INCLUDING HAVING ANY REPAIRS PERFORMED UNDER
WARRANTY, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THESE TERMS. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE
TERMS, PLEASE CONTACT US AT OPT-OUT@HMAUSA.COM WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF
YOUR PURCHASE OR LEASE TO OPT-OUT OF THIS ARBITRATION PROVISION.
(“DECLARATION OF ALI AMERIPOUR IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL BINDING ARBITRATION,” filed 6/1/23, ex. 3 (“Owner’s
Handbook & Warranty Information”), § 4, p. 14). [Emphasis added.]
The opposing attorney declaration contains no evidence
to the contrary. Further, the opposition
does not describe any substantive unconscionability by only generally
concluding it contains harsh and one-sided terms. Published opinions have addressed specific
types of unconscionable terms that the opposition does not discuss. Further, reading the warranty arbitration
provisions reveals no cognizable, unconscionable terms. Claims are subject to arbitration and not
unconscionable, if there are provisions for arbitrator neutrality, discovery,
written decisions, and expense limits. Armendariz
v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 96-121.
Hence, the Court finds and concludes that the warranty
agreement was not take-it-or-leave it and was not procedurally or substantively
unconscionable.
Motion to Compel Deposition
The motion to compel a deposition argues that Plaintiff
attempted multiple times through meet and confer efforts to get Defendant’s
counsel to provide an alternate date set for the deposition, but Defendant has
not provided any alternate dates. Defendant
contends the opposite, that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer in good faith
to set a mutually agreeable deposition date.
Here, the Court compels this case into arbitration and
does not decide the discovery motion. "After
a petition to compel arbitration has been granted and a lawsuit stayed, 'the
arbitrator takes over. It is the job of the arbitrator, not the court, to
resolve all questions needed to determine the controversy.'” MKJA, Inc. v. 123 Fit Franchising, LLC
(2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 643, 662. “[A]ll
discovery disputes arising out of arbitration must be submitted first to the
arbitral, not the judicial forum.” Berglund
v. Arthroscopic & Laser Surgery Center of San Diego, L.P. (2008) 44
Cal.4th 528, 535 (citing CCP §1283.05).
Conclusion
The Court grants the motion to compel arbitration as
to this entire action and discovery.