Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV25608, Date: 2024-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV25608    Hearing Date: March 4, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On October 19, 2023, Plaintiff Juan Longfellow filed this action against Defendants Carvana, LLC, Bridgecrest Credit Company, LLC, and Developers Surety and Indemnity Company. The complaint asserts causes of action for (1) violation of CLRA, (2) violation of the Song-Beverly Act, and (3) claim against dealer bond. The action stems from Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2013 Volkswagen Jetta, which Plaintiff alleges was sold to him with undisclosed defects.     On December 12, 2023, Defendants filed the instant motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.  

LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) states that “[a] written provision in any . . . contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction . . . shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” (9 U.S.C. § 2.) The term “involving commerce” is interpreted to mean simply “affecting commerce” to give the FAA the broadest reach possible, and does not require a transaction that is actually “within the flow of interstate commerce.” (See Allied-Bruce Terminix Co. v. Dobson (1995) 513 U.S. 265, 273-74; Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc. (2003) 539 U.S. 52, 56.) Moreover, parties may agree to apply the FAA notwithstanding any effect on interstate commerce. (Victrola 89, LLC v. Jaman Properties 8 LLC (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 337, 355.)

“On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party to the agreement refuses to arbitrate that controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists….” (Code Civ. Proc, § 1281.2.) “The party seeking arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement, and the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving any defense, such as unconscionability.” (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236.)

DISCUSSION

“The moving party ‘can meet its initial burden by attaching to the motion or petition a copy of the arbitration agreement purporting to bear the opposing party's signature.’” (Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 165, quoting Bannister v. Marinidence Opco, LLC (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 541, 543-44.)

Upon purchasing the vehicle, Plaintiff signed an Arbitration Agreement covering any claim arising from or related to: the sales contract; the vehicle or its sale; or the provision of services such as warranties and insurance related to the vehicle. (Piatak Decl., Ex. A.) The agreement covers Carvana, “any purchaser, assignee or servicer of the Contract,” or “any third party providing any product or service in connection with or incidental to the Contract, the sale of the vehicle and/or other goods or services covered by the Contract and/or related to the vehicle, if such third party is named as a co-defendant.” (Ibid.)

Therefore, Defendants have proven the existence of an arbitration agreement covering the claims and defendants at issue. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition and thus provides no basis against enforcement of the agreement.

CONCLUSION

            Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. The case is stayed in its entirety pending the outcome of arbitration.