Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV03063, Date: 2024-06-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV03063    Hearing Date: June 7, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is requested and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Charles George (Plaintiff) brings this action against Tesla, Inc. (Tesla) alleging violation of certain provisions of Civil Code § 1791.2, commonly known as the Song Beverly Act.

Before the Court is a motion by Tesla to compel Plaintiff’s claims to arbitration. Plaintiff has rendered no opposition to the motion.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

C.C.P. § 1281.2 states: “[o]n petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement arbitrate the controversy exists.”

A party seeking to compel arbitration has the initial burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence of a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement. (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 972.) If the moving party has met its initial burden, then the burden shifts to respondents to prove the falsity or unenforceability of the arbitration agreement. (Id.) 

II.                 MERITS

Judicial Notice

Tesla requests judicial notice be granted of the Complaint in this matter. As the Complaint in this matter is a record of the Court within the meaning of Evidence Code § 452, it is subject to judicial notice. Accordingly, Tesla’s request is GRANTED.

Motion to Compel Arbitration

As evidence of a valid arbitration agreement between the parties, Tesla produces two separate agreements containing arbitration clauses. The first arbitration agreement is contained in the Motor Vehicle Order Agreement (MVOA). Tesla states that Plaintiff, as with everyone else who purchases a vehicle from Tesla online, signed and submitted an MVOA as part of the online ordering process. (Kim Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. 1.) The arbitration provision in the MVOA reads as follows:

Please carefully read this provision, which applies to any dispute between you and Tesla, Inc. and its affiliates, (together “Tesla”). If you have a concern or dispute, please send a written notice describing it and your desired resolution to resolutions@tesla.com. If not resolved within 60 days, 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. This includes claims arising before this Agreement, such as claims related to statements about our products. We will pay all AAA fees for any arbitration, which will be held in the city or county of your residence. To learn more about the Rules and how to begin an arbitration, you may call any AAA office or go to www.adr.org. The arbitrator may only resolve disputes between you and Tesla, and may not consolidate claims without the consent of all parties. The arbitrator cannot hear class or representative claims or requests for relief on behalf of others purchasing or leasing Tesla vehicles. In other words, you and Tesla may bring claims against the other only in your or its individual capacity and not as a plaintiffs or class member in any class or representative action. If a court or arbitrator decides that any part of this agreement to arbitrate cannot be enforced as to a particular claim for relief or remedy, then that claim or remedy (and only that claim or remedy) must be brought in court and any other claims must be arbitrated.

If you prefer, you may instead take an individual dispute to small claims court. You may opt out of arbitration within 30 days after signing this Agreement by sending a letter to: Tesla, Inc.; P.O. Box 15430; Fremont, CA 94539-7970, stating your name, Vehicle Identification Number, and intent to opt out of the arbitration provision. If you do not opt out, this agreement to arbitrate overrides any different arbitration agreement between us, including any arbitration agreement in a lease or finance contract.

Plaintiff also appears to have executed a Lease Agreement (Lease) shortly before delivery of the vehicle. (Kim Decl. ¶ 8, Exh. 2.) The Lease contains an arbitration agreement which appears to be identical to that in the MVOA.

The Court must first determine whether either the MVOA or Lease constitute a valid arbitration agreement. “The existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate is determined by reference to state law principles regarding the formation, revocation and enforceability of contracts generally.” (Bolter v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 900, 906.) Here, both the MVOA and Lease evidence the formation of an agreement to arbitrate. The MVOA was conspicuously presented to Plaintiff and required his affirmative assent to its terms to proceed with the transaction. The Lease appears to have been signed by Plaintiff on December 21, 2021. (Kim Decl.  Exh. 2 at p. 6.)

The arbitration agreement must also relate to the action before the Court. “In determining whether an arbitration agreement applies to a specific dispute, the court may examine only the agreement itself and the complaint filed by the party refusing arbitration [citation]. The court should attempt to give effect to the parties' intentions, in light of the usual and ordinary meaning of the contractual language and the circumstances under which the agreement was made.” (Weeks v. Crow (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 350, 353). Here, the Court finds the arbitration clauses in the MVOA and the Lease clearly apply to Plaintiff’s claims under Song Beverly. The language that “any dispute arising out of or relating to any aspect of the relationship between you and Tesla” certainly covers claims arising from the allegedly defective Tesla vehicle provided to Plaintiff.

The Court finds Tesla has demonstrated the existence of a valid arbitration agreement between the parties. As such, Tesla has upheld its initial burden and the burden shifts to Plaintiff to show falsity or unenforceability. As Plaintiff has rendered no opposition to this motion, the Court finds his burden has not been met. Accordingly, the motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.

--- 

RULING:

In the event a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Tesla Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration came on regularly for hearing on June 7, 2024, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the Court took the matter under submission and now rules as follows: 

THE MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION IS GRANTED.

THE COURT ISSUES A STAY ON THE CASE PENDING ARBITRATION.

THE COURT SETS A STATUS CONFERENCE RE ARBITRATION FOR JANUARY 28, 2025 AT 9:00 A.M.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, TESLA TO GIVE NOTICE.  

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  June 7, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles