Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STLC02344, Date: 2022-07-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC02344    Hearing Date: July 27, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, PICK ARBITRATION FORUM, STAY ACTION

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff William W. Reynolds

RESP. PARTY:         None

PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

(CCP §§ 1281.2, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff William W. Reynolds’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, Pick Forum, and Stay the Proceedings is DENIED.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     OK

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of July 22, 2022.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of July 22, 2022.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On April 7, 2022, Plaintiff William W. Reynolds (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants La Puente Motors, Inc., Navy Federal Credit Union, and Surety (collectively “Defendants”) for (1) violation of Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code § 1750 et seq., (2) violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., Unlawful Acts or Practices, and (3) claim against Surety.  The action is based on Plaintiff’s purchase of a used vehicle from Defendant La Puente Motors, Inc.  (Compl. p. 4 ¶ 16.)

On April 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Arbitration (“Motion”) to arbitrate the controversy between Plaintiff and Defendants La Puente Motors, Inc. and Navy Federal Credit Union and stay the proceedings pending arbitration.

On May 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Request for Dismissal of Defendant Navy Federal Credit Union and on May 20, 2022, the Court dismissed said Defendant.  (5-16-22 Request for Dismissal.)

II.              Legal Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1281.2, generally, on a petition to compel arbitration, the court must grant the petition unless it finds either (1) no written agreement to arbitrate exists; (2) the right to compel arbitration has been waived; (3) grounds exist for revocation 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 the moving party to demonstrate the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by prepondernace 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.)  Subsequently, the moving party must establish with the preponderance of admissible evidence a valid arbitration agreement between the parties.  (Ibid.)  The trial court then weighs all the evidence submitted and uses its discretion to make a final determination.  (Ibid.)  “California law, ‘like [federal law], reflects a strong policy favoring arbitration agreements and requires close judicial scrutiny of waiver claims.’”  (Wagner Const. Co. v. Pacific Mechanical Corp. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 19, 31.)

If the court orders arbitration, then the court shall stay the action until arbitration is completed.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.)

III.            Discussion

Plaintiff brings the instant Motion seeking to compel Defendant La Puente Motors, Inc. to submit to arbitration based on a vehicle Retail Installment Sale Contract (the “RISC”).  Defendant was served with the Summons and Complaint on April 26, 2022.  (5-16-22 and 7-5-22 Proof of Service – La Puente Motors, Inc.)  More than three months have passed since Defendant La Puente Motors, Inc. was served but no responsive pleading has been filed.  Plaintiff has not sought to enter Defendant’s default as required by Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.110.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.110(g) [“If a responsive pleading is not served within the time limits specified in this rule and no extension of time has been granted, the plaintiff must file a request for entry of default within 10 days after the time for service has elapsed.”].)  There is no point in compelling Defendant to arbitration if it has failed to respond to the Complaint and Plaintiff is required to pursue default.

            Moreover, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion contains the incorrect court address.  This matter is pending in front of Department 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff William W. Reynolds’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, Pick Forum, and Stay the Proceedings is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.