Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 24STCV28355, Date: 2025-03-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV28355    Hearing Date: March 5, 2025    Dept: 14

#10

Case Background

This is a lemon law action.

On October 29, 2024, Plaintiff Zesika Nepal filed her Complaint against Defendants Hyundai Motor America, Inc. (Hyundai) and Garden Grove HY LLC (Dealer)(erroneously sued as YNOT 6 II LLC).

On January 9, 2025, Defendants filed this motion to compel arbitration.

Instant Pleading

Defendants move to compel arbitration and stay this matter.

Decision

Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. The matter is stayed pending the outcome of arbitration.

Discussion

Defendants allege an arbitration agreement exists between Plaintiff and Defendants because Plaintiff signed a vehicle lease agreement containing a mandatory arbitration clause. (Croce Decl., Exh. B.)

The lease agreement states, under the Governing Law and Rules section, that the agreement to arbitrate is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Thus, the Federal Arbitration Act governs the motion to compel arbitration. (See Victrola 89, LLC v. Jamon Properties 8 LLC (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 337, 346 [finding the FAA governs a motion to compel arbitration when an agreement provides its ‘enforcement’ shall be governed by the FAA].)  Therefore, the Court’s inquiry is limited to a determination of (1) whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and (2) whether the arbitration agreement covers the dispute.  (9 U.S.C., section 4;¿Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostics Systems, Inc.¿(9th Cir. 2000) 207 F.3d 1126, 1130;¿Howsam¿v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.¿(2002) 537 U.S. 79, 84;¿see¿Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc.¿(9th Cir. 1999) 175 F.3d 716 [if the finding is affirmative on both counts the FAA requires the Court to enforce the arbitration agreement in accordance with its terms].) 

The arbitration clause reads as follows:

“In the event of a claim or dispute between you and us (including our respective agents, employees, officers, directors, affiliates, subsidiaries and parents) ("we" or “us"}, whether in contract, tort, statute, or otherwise, arising under or relating to this Lease or the Leased Vehicle, your experience with us, or any resulting transaction or relationship, the claim or dispute must be resolved by binding arbitration, as described below, instead of in court. Any claim or dispute (except for a claim challenging the Class Action Waiver below) must be resolved by binding arbitration if either side requests it, including a claim challenging the validity or enforceability of this Agreement to Arbitrate. THIS MEANS IF EITHER YOU OR WE CHOOSE ARBITRATION, NEITHER PARTY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO LITIGATE SUCH CLAIM IN COURT OR TO HAVE A JURY TRIAL. ALSO, DISCOVERY AND APPEAL RIGHTS ARE LIMITED IN ARBITRATION.”

(Croce Decl., Exh. B.)

The lease agreement bears Plaintiff’s electronic signature and initials.

Based on the above evidence, the Court finds that a valid arbitration agreement exists between Defendants and Plaintiff. The agreement covers the subject dispute because this action arose from the leased vehicle. Additionally, the motion is unopposed. The lack of an opposition operates as a concession that the motion has merit. See California Rules of Court Rule 3.1113(a); see also Rule 3.1320(f); Herzberg v. County of Plumas (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1, 20. Therefore, Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.

Conclusion

Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. The matter is stayed pending the outcome of arbitration.