Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STLC04446, Date: 2023-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC04446    Hearing Date: January 4, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Thursday, January 04, 2024

Case Name:                             DANTE SEGUNDO v. SAHARA AUTO MART, INC, a California Corporation; SIERRAA CREDIT CORPORATION; HUDSON INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES 1- 40 inclusive,

Case No.:                                23STLC04446

Motion:                                   Motion to Compel Arbitration

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff Dante Segundo

Responding Party:                   Defendant Sierra Credit Corporation.

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:                    Plaintiff Dante Segundo’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. 

All future hearing dates are vacated. (i.e.:  the 01/10/2025 Trial)

The Court sets a Post Arbitration Status Conference for SEPTEMBER 5, 2024 at 9:30am in Department 25 of the Spring Street Courthouse, with a JOINT status report to be filed 5 days before the scheduled hearing.   

Moving party is ordered to give notice. 

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:          Filed as of October 18, 2023                          [   ] Late          [   ] None 

REPLY:                     None filed as of December 27, 2023              [   ] Late          [X] None 

BACKGROUND

On July 14, 2023, Plaintiffs Dante Segundo and Jessica Navarro (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Sahara Auto Mart, Inc., Sierra Credit Corporation, Hudson Insurance Company, and Does 1 to 40, alleging causes of action for: (1) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) pursuant to California Civil Code section 1750 et seq.; (2) violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.; (3) violation of California Civil Code section 1632; and (4) claim against surety. The complaint arises from the sale of an allegedly defective used 2014 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 (the “Subject Vehicle”).

On August 22, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion for an order compelling Defendants Sahara Auto Mart, Inc. and Sierra Credit Corporation to arbitrate the controversy pursuant to the grievance and arbitration provisions of the Retail Installment Sale Contract (“RISC”) between the parties and for an order to stay this action pending the results of arbitration (the “Motion”).^[1] The Motion does not seek to compel arbitration of any claims against Defendant Hudson Insurance Company.

On September 12, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Proof of Service of Summons indicating that Defendant Hudson Insurance Company was served with the summons, complaint, and the Motion on August 23, 2023, via personal service.

Plaintiffs filed a Proof of Service of Summons indicating that Defendant Sierra Credit Corporation was served with the summons, complaint, and the Motion on August 24, 2023, via substituted service. As to Defendant Sahara Auto Mart, Inc., Plaintiffs filed a Non-Service Report on September 12, 2023, indicating that Plaintiffs were unable to effectuate service of the summons, complaint, and the Motion on Defendant Sahara Auto Mart, Inc. Plaintiffs attempted to serve Defendant Sahara Auto Mart, Inc. on August 24, 2023, at 11461 San Fernando Road, Unit A, San Fernando, CA 91340; however, a neighboring business confirmed that Defendant Sahara Auto Mart, Inc. is no longer occupying such address. The Non-Service Report is signed by a registered California process server.

On October 18, 2023, Defendant Sierra Credit Corporation filed and served an opposition to the Motion.

On November 07, 2023, the Court continued the hearing citing lack of service on Defendant Sahara Auto Mart, Inc.

On November 17, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Proof of Service by Substituted Service indicating that Defendant Sahara Auto Mart, Inc. was served with the summons, complaint, and the Motion on October 31, 2023, via substituted service.

No reply brief has been filed.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

Plaintiffs contend that the controversy is covered by the arbitration provision in the RISC, and the right to compel arbitration has not been waived. Plaintiffs assert that the parties do not agree on the forum of arbitration. Plaintiffs indicate that they elect the AAA or, in the alternative, JAMS as the arbitration forum.

OPPOSITION

            In opposition to the Motion, Defendant Sierra Credit Corporation indicates that it agrees to arbitrate this matter through the AAA and is in the process of facilitating AAA. Defendant Sierra Credit Corporation asserts that it objects to JAMS arbitrating this action.

REPLY

            No reply has been filed.

ANALYSIS

I.          Legal Standard

“A party who claims that there is a written agreement to arbitrate may petition the superior court for an order to compel arbitration” pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2. Banner Entertainment, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 348, 356. “California law, like federal law, favors enforcement of valid arbitration agreements.” (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 97.) “On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party to the agreement refuses to arbitrate that controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, unless it determines that: (a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or (b) Grounds exist for rescission of the agreement.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2.) A party opposing a petition to compel arbitration “bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense.” Banner Entertainment, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th 348, 356.

“[T]he writing memorializing an arbitration agreement need not be signed by both parties in order to be upheld as a binding arbitration agreement.” Serafin v. Balco Properties Ltd., LLC (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 165, 176. “[I]t is not the presence or absence of a signature which is dispositive; it is the presence or absence of evidence of an agreement to arbitrate which matters.” (Banner Entertainment, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th 348, 361.)

Where a motion to compel arbitration is granted, a court “shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.4.) 

II.        Discussion

            In its prior order, the Court noted while on merits the motion complied with CCP § 1281.2 that it could not grant the motion because Plaintiff had not supplied the court with evidence that the motion had been served on Defendant Sahara Auto Mart, Inc. (11/07/23 Minute Order.) Here, Plaintiff provides the Court with a proof of substituted service indicating that the motion along with the summons, complaint, the motion’s proposed order, and accompanying declaration in support of the motion were served on Defendant Sahara Auto Mart, Inc. on October 31, 2023. (11/17/23 Proof of Service by Substituted Service.)

            The Court therefore GRANTS the motion. 

II.        Conclusion

            Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. This entire action is stayed pending the results of arbitration. 

All future hearing dates are vacated. (i.e.:  the 01/10/2025 Trial)

The Court sets a Post Arbitration Status Conference for SEPTEMBER 5, 2024 at 9:30am in Department 25 of the Spring Street Courthouse, with a JOINT status report to be filed 5 days before the scheduled hearing.     Both Counsel are ordered to appear this date.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.