Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 24SMCV00495, Date: 2024-06-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV00495, Date: 2024-06-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV00495 Hearing Date: June 14, 2024 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Levich v. Tesla, Inc., Case No. 24SMCV00495

Hearing date June 14, 2024

Defendant Tesla, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration - UNOPPOSED

Defendant Tesla moves to compel arbitration in this Song Beverly claim. Plaintiff did not file opposition.

On December 10, 2012 plaintiff leased the vehicle from defendant. Kim Decl. ¶3; Exhibit 1. The lease is pre-printed, with the only details that need to be filled in being financial details, Plaintiff’s identifying information, the vehicle identifying information, and buyer’s signature. Kim Decl. ¶4. Included in the pre-printed portion of the Lease is an arbitration provision, at section 33. Kim Decl. ¶4, Exh.1, p. 3.

The arbitration provision states: “33. Agreement to Arbitrate … you agree that any dispute arising out of or relating to any aspect of the relationship between you and Tesla will not be decided by a judge or jury but instead by a single arbitrator in an arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) under its Consumer Arbitration Rules.”

Tesla moves to compel arbitration in accordance with the Lease and seeks to stay pursuant to section 3 of the FAA (9 U.S.C. §3; accord Code Civ. Proc. §1281.4).

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applies to contracts that involve interstate commerce. 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-2. Automotive sales contracts necessarily involve interstate commerce, because even when used intra-state, “cars are themselves instrumentalities of interstate commerce.” U.S. v. Oliver (9th Cir. 1995) 60 F.3d 547, 550; see also Sanchez v. v. Valencia Holding Co. (2015) 61 Cal.4th 899, 906-907 (applying FAA to automotive sales contract). Under the FAA, “any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration . . . .” Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp. (1983) 460 U.S. 1, 24–25.

Under California law, public policy favors arbitration. Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 8-9; AT&T Mobility, 563 U.S. at 339. To further that policy, Code Civ. Proc. §1281.2 requires a trial court to enforce a written arbitration agreement unless it finds (1) no written agreement to arbitrate exists, (2) the right to compel arbitration has been waived, (3) grounds exist for rescission of the agreement or (4) litigation is pending that may render the arbitration unnecessary or create conflicting rulings on common issues.

When seeking to compel arbitration, the initial burden lies with moving party to demonstrate existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of evidence. Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 841-42; Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021), 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 164-65. It is sufficient for the moving party to produce a copy of the arbitration agreement or set forth the agreement’s provisions. Gamboa, 72 Cal.App.5th at 165. The burden then shifts to the opposing party to prove by a preponderance of evidence any defense to enforcement of the contract or the arbitration clause. Ruiz, 232 Cal.App.4th at 842; Gamboa, 72 Cal.App.5th at 165. The trial court then weighs all the evidence submitted and uses its discretion to make a final determination. Id. “California law, like [federal law], reflects a strong policy favoring arbitration agreements[.]” Wagner Const. Co. v. Pacific Mechanical Corp. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 19, 31 (internal quotations omitted). If the court orders arbitration, then the court shall stay the action until arbitration is completed. See Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.4.

Defendant presents evidence of the arbitration agreement, see Lease section 33. Plaintiff agreed to the terms and conditions by electronically signing the Lease. The arbitration provision’s requirement of any dispute “arising out of or relating to any aspect of the relationship between [plaintiff] and Tesla” includes plaintiff’s claims.

The burden shifts to plaintiff to prove a defense to enforcement of the arbitration clause. No opposition was filed. Motion GRANTED. Per Code Civ. Proc. §1281.4 the matter is STAYED.