Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 22TRCV01148, Date: 2023-05-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV01148    Hearing Date: May 3, 2023    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka                                                                                        Wednesday, May 3, 2023
Department B                                                                                                                            Calendar No. 7

PROCEEDINGS

Alejandro Garibay v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc., et al.

22TRCV01148

1.      American Honda Motor Company, Inc.’s Motion for an Order Staying This Action Pending the Hearing of Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings 

TENTATIVE RULING

American Honda Motor Company, Inc.’s Motion for an Order Staying This Action Pending the Hearing of Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings is granted.

Background

            Plaintiff filed the Complaint on November 3, 2022. Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Plaintiff alleges that his 2019 Honda Pilot suffers from transmission, engine, power train, safety, and electrical defects. Plaintiff sets forth causes of action under the Song-Beverly Act as well as causes of action for Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability and Breach of Express Warranty.   

            Motion for an Order Staying This Action

            Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4 states, in relevant part: “If an application has been made to a court of competent jurisdiction, whether in this State or not, for an order to arbitrate a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State and such application is undetermined, the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until the application for an order to arbitrate is determined and, if arbitration of such controversy is ordered, until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.”

            “This statute is clear and unambiguous: it requires that the trial court stay an action pending before it while an application to arbitrate the subject matter of the action is pending in a court of competent jurisdiction. There is no specific or implied exception contained within the statute to preclude its application for dilatory action by a party seeking to arbitrate the matter. Relief based on such a claim should be presented to the court entertaining the application to arbitrate, as well as any substantive arguments relating to whether arbitration is appropriate under the facts presented.” Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 188, 192 (internal citation omitted).

            Defendant moves for an order to stay the entire action pending the hearing of its Motion to Compel Arbitration which is currently scheduled for July 27, 2023.  Plaintiff argues that the motion should be denied because he has served discovery requests that are directly relevant to issues involved in Defendant’s underlying motion to compel arbitration.  Plaintiff sets forth a reasonable argument because discovery as to matters that are directly relevant to the motion to compel arbitration itself may certainly be useful to both parties prior to the hearing of the motion to compel arbitration.  However, Plaintiff provides no authority to show that there is an exception to the authorities listed above which mandates a complete stay prior to the hearing of the motion to compel arbitration.

            Therefore, the motion for order of stay is granted.  The action is stayed pending the hearing and resolution of the Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings.

            Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.