Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STLC04734, Date: 2024-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC04734    Hearing Date: March 21, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Thursday, March 21, 2024

Case Name:                             ALEXEY PEREIRA, an individual; ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ, an individual v. CAR LUX INC., a California Corporation; CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE, INC.; WESTERN SURETY COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 40, inclusive,

Case No.:                                23STLC04734

Motion:                                   Motion to Compel Arbitration, Motion for Court to Pick Arbitration Forum, and Request for Stay.

Moving Party:                         Plaintiffs Alexey Pereira and Antonio Rodriguez

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:                    Plaintiffs Alexey Pereira and Antonio Rodriguez’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.  

The matter is STAYED pending a final resolution of Plaintiff’s claims in the arbitration proceedings as provided by the parties’ agreement.

Conference Re:  Status of Arbitration Proceedings is set for 11/19/2024 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 25 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

                                                Counsel are ordered to electronically file a JOINT Report Re:  Status of Arbitration at least 5-court days prior to 11/19/2024.      

Trial set for 01/23/2025 and OSC Re:  Proof of Service set for 07/30/20206 are advanced to this date and hereby taken off calendar/discharged.

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 March 08, 2024                    [   ] Late          [X] None 

REPLY:                     None filed as of March 14, 2024                    [   ] Late          [X] None 

BACKGROUND

On July 27, 2023, Plaintiffs Alexey Pereira (“Pereira”) and Antonio Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) brought three causes of action against Defendants Car Lux, Inc (“Car Lux”), Capital One Auto Finance, Inc. (“Capital One Auto”), and Western Surety Company (“Western Surety”) (collectively “Defendants”) for 1) violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act under Civil Code § 1750 et seq., 2) violation of CA Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., Unlawful Acts or Practices, 3) claim against surety.

On September 25, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint adding a fourth cause of action against Defendants for violation of CCP §§ 1281.97 & 1281.99.

Defendants Car Lux and Western Surety filed their Answer on October 24, 2023.

On January 23, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Compel Arbitration, Motion for Court to Pick Arbitration Forum, and Request for Stay.

No opposition has been filed.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

Plaintiffs pray for the Court to issue an order compelling Car Lux and Capital One to arbitrate the controversy pursuant to the grievance and arbitration provision of the Retail Installment Sales Contract (“RISC”) between the parties and order for a stay of the proceedings pending the results of the arbitration under CCP §§ 1281.2, 1281.97, and 1281.99. Plaintiffs argue that the RISC contains a valid agreement to arbitrate the current controversy.

OPPOSITION

            No opposition has been filed.

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.)

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. 

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

Plaintiffs bring the instant motion seeking to compel Car Lux and Capitol One to submit to arbitration according to the parties’ RISC under Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.2.

Here, Plaintiffs provide evidence of the arbitration agreement they entered with Car Lux. (Mot., Kasra Sadr Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. 2, p. 6 at “Arbitration”; Exh. 3.) The arbitration agreement states that,

Any claim or dispute, whether in contract, tort, statue or otherwise (including the interpretation and scope of this arbitration Provision, and the arbitrability of the claim or dispute)… which arises out of or relates to your credit application, purchase or condition of this vehicle, this contract or any resulting transaction or relationship…shall at your or our election, be resolved by neutral binding arbitration and not by a court action.

(Id.) Thus, based on the preceding, the Court finds an enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties.

            Here, Plaintiffs provide evidence that Car Lux and Capitol One have not agreed to arbitration. (Mot., Sadr Decl. ¶ 3; Exh. 1.) The Court notes that neither Defendant asserts any defense to enforcement of the arbitration agreement, such as a waiver or other grounds to revoke the agreement. The Court further notes that “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.) Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to an order compelling Car Lux and Capitol One to arbitration. 

The Court further notes that the arbitration agreement provides that Plaintiffs,

…may chose 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…We will pay your filing, administration, service, or case management fee and your arbitrator or hearing fee all up to a maximum of $5,000, unless the law or the rules of the chosen arbitration organization require us to pay more.

(Mot., Sadr Decl., Exh. 2, p. 6 at “Arbitration Provision.”) Here, the Court notes that Plaintiffs elect that the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) or alternatively JAMS be the forum for the arbitration. The agreement lays out a procedure by which the parties will initiate and conduct arbitration and specifically provides that the AAA would be the forum unless Plaintiffs elect otherwise. Thus, the Court finds the parties' dispute can be sufficiently arbitrated under CCP § 1281.6 through the AAA, or in the alternative, JAMS.

The Court also finds that a stay of the action is appropriate in this case once the motion is granted, as Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.4 stipulates that the Court shall stay the action until arbitration is completed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.) 

            Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Arbitration.

II.        Conclusion

            Plaintiffs Alexey Pereira and Antonio Rodriguez’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings is GRANTED. 

The matter is STAYED pending a final resolution of Plaintiff’s claims in the arbitration proceedings as provided by the parties’ agreement.

Conference Re:  Status of Arbitration Proceedings is set for 11/19/2024 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 25 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

            Counsel are ordered to electronically file a JOINT Report Re:  Status of Arbitration at least 5-court days prior to 11/19/2024.          

Trial set for 01/23/2025 and OSC Re:  Proof of Service set for 07/30/20206 are advanced to this date and hereby taken off calendar/discharged.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.