Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV23551, Date: 2022-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV23551    Hearing Date: October 31, 2022    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration through JAMS is DENIED.

            On 6/24//2021, Plaintiff Manal Mansour (Plaintiff) filed suit against Hyundai Motor America (Defendant) alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Act.

            On 7/26/2022, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.

            Now, Plaintiff moves to compel arbitration before JAMS rather than AAA, the forum which the parties are currently arbitrating in. 

Discussion

            Plaintiff argues that Defendant should be ordered to arbitrate this matter with JAMs because Defendant does not have the authority to initiate arbitration in the forum of their choosing without the express consent of Plaintiff.

            In support, Plaintiff cite the RISC which states that “You may choose the American Arbitration Association, 1633 Broadway, 10th Floor, New York, New York 10019 (www.adr.org), or any other organization to conduct the arbitration subject to our approval." (Motion, Exh. 5.) Plaintiff then presents several arguments as to why AAA is not a desirable forum for arbitration.

            In opposition, Defendant argues that the correct interpretation of the term is that by executing the RISC Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate using the AAA, unless Defendant agreed to use another institution. Moreover, Defendant argues that Plaintiff is asking the Court to grant Plaintiff the right of choice of arbitral forum, which the arbitration provision does not allow for.

            The Court agrees with Defendant on both counts. Plaintiff has not identified any basis that would allow this Court to evaluate the arguments for pursuing arbitration in JAMS versus AAA in order to select the arbitration forum on behalf of the parties, or to unilaterally grant Plaintiff’s choice of forum.

Rather, the arbitration language provides for arbitration at AAA, or another forum subject to Defendant’s approval. By its clear meaning, this provides that arbitration must proceed at AAA unless Defendant agrees to do otherwise. A number of other courts have reached the same conclusion when interpreting this contractual language. See, e.g., Gunarantes v. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC (Los Angeles Sup. Ct. Apr. 20, 2022) 2022 WL 2789391 (denying motion to compel arbitration before JAMS because “Defendants can refuse to arbitrate before any organization other than AAA. Plaintiff must use AAA unless defendants approve a different organization.”); Hanley v. Car Zone Auto Sale (Sacramento Sup. Ct. Oct. 23, 2017) 2017 Cal. Super. LEXIS 24695, at *3 (denying motion to compel arbitration before JAMS because “[t]he contract is unambiguous in requiring defendant's approval of the arbitration forum”); Gless v. Zoom Motors (Sacramento Sup. Ct. Feb. 22, 2017) 2017 Cal. Super. LEXIS 39699, at *7 (“plaintiff cannot compel the appointment of any arbitrator without defendants’ consent except for AAA, to which defendants have already consented”); Bernal v. Antelope Valley Nissan Inc. (Los Angeles Sup. Ct. Jan. 4, 2017) 2017 WL 11687211 (denying motion to compel arbitration before JAMS because arbitration clause provided for AAA unless parties otherwise agreed); McKee v. Holzauer, No. 16 CECG 01603 (Fresno Sup. Ct. Aug. 9, 2016) (slip op.) (same); Bluhm v. RI Niello Co. Inc., No. 34-2016-00192878-CU-PA-GDS (Sacramento Sup. Ct. Jul. 15, 2016) (slip op.) (compelling arbitration but denying selection of JAMS because arbitration clause provided for AAA unless otherwise agreed); Pennings v. Drew Ford, No. 37-2016-00015005 (San Diego Sup. Ct. Jul. 11, 2016) (slip op.) (denying motion to compel arbitration before JAMS because arbitration clause provided for AAA unless parties otherwise agreed); Zamora v. GPI CA-VS, Inc., No. 37-2016 00005266-CU-PT-CTL (San Diego Sup. Ct. Feb. 17, 2016).)

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration through JAMS is denied.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  October    , 2022

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.