Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STLC05100, Date: 2024-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC05100    Hearing Date: January 23, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Tuesday, January 23, 2024

Case Name:                             MARTA ALICIA MELENDEZ SALGADO v. A.D. CARBROS INC dba BANK REPO AUTO SALES, a California Corporation; SOL ACCEPTANCE, LLC; HUDSON INSURANCE COMPANY and DOES 1 through 40 inclusive,

Case No.:                                23STLC05100

Motion:                                   Motion to Compel Arbitration

Moving Party:                         Defendant Sol Acceptance, LLC

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:                    Defendant Sol Acceptance, LLC’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.  

Post-Arbitration Status Conference is set for September 25, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 25 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

Counsel are ordered to served and file a JOINT Report Re:  Status of Arbitration Proceedings (5) court days prior to 09/25/2024.

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 January 09, 2024                  [   ] Late          [X] None 

REPLY:                     None filed as of January 16, 2024                  [   ] Late          [X] None 

BACKGROUND

On August 14, 2023, Plaintiff Marta Alicia Melendez Salgado (“Plaintiff”) filed several causes of action against Defendants A.D. Carbros Inc. Dba Bank Repo Auto Sales, (“A.D. Carbros”), Sol Acceptance, LLC (“Sol Acceptance”), and Hudson Insurance Company (“Hudson”) (collectively “Defendants”) for the following: 1) Violations of Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code § 1750 et seq.); 2) Violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et Seq.; 3)Violation of Civ. Code § 1632; 4) Implied Warranty of Merchantability; and 5) Claim Against Surety.

On September 13, 2023, Defendant Hudson filed its Answer.

On November 16, 2023, Defendant Sol Acceptance filed the instant motion to Compel Arbitration. Defendant Hudson files a declaration noting that it takes no position on the merits of the motion.

No opposition has been filed.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

Defendant Sol Acceptance prays for the Court to issue an order compelling arbitration among the parties arguing that the issue at action is covered under the arbitration provision in the RISC, and the right to compel arbitration has not been waived. Sol Acceptance additional argues that the arbitration provision is not unconscionable. Sol Acceptance further requests that the Court stay the action pending the completion of arbitration. Finally, Sol Acceptance seeks reimbursement of $444.95 in cost attributed to filing the motion.

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.)

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

Defendant Sol Acceptance brings the instant Motion seeking to compel Plaintiff to submit to arbitration based on a vehicle Retail Installment Sale Contract (the “RISC”) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.2.

Here, Sol Acceptance provides evidence of the existence of the arbitration agreement in RISC, which was entered into with Plaintiff. (Motion, Chris Tauscher Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. 1, p. 7 at “Arbitration Provision”.) The arbitration agreement states that,

Any claim or dispute, whether in contract, tort, statute or otherwise (including the Interpretation and scope of this Arbitration Provision, and the arbitrability of the claim or dispute), between you and us or our employees, agents, successors or assigns, which arises out of or relates to your credit application, purchase or condition of this vehicle, this contract or any resulting transaction or relationship (including any such relationship with third parties who do not sign this contract) shall, at your or our election, be resolved by neutral, binding arbitration and not by a court action.

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

            Here, Sol Acceptance provides evidence that the parties have been unable to come to an agreement regarding arbitration. (Motion, Paige C. Sirey Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. 2.) The Court notes that Plaintiff does not assert any defense to enforcement of the arbitration agreement, such as 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 Sol Acceptance is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to arbitration. 

The Court further notes that Sol Acceptance has also demonstrated that the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute through the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”). The arbitration agreement states: “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, Tauscher Decl., Exh. 1, p. 7 at “Arbitration Provision.”) Plaintiff has not indicated she does not approve of the AAA, nor has she submitted any other organization to conduct the arbitration. Thus, the Court finds the issue can be sufficiently arbitrated before the AAA.

The Court additionally finds that a stay of the action is also 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.)      

Finally, Sol Acceptance requests costs incurred bringing the instant Motion in the amount of $444.95. Code of Civil Procedure § 1293.2 provides that, “[t]he court shall award costs upon any judicial proceeding under this title as provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1021) of Title 14 of Part 2 of this code.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1293.2.) “A petition to compel arbitration under section 1281.2 is a judicial proceeding covered by this provision.”  (Otay River Constructors v. San Diego Expressway (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 796, 805.) Here, Sol Acceptance avers that it has incurred costs in the sum of $444.95 for the following $435.00 in appearance fees and $9.95 in electronic filing fees (Motion, Sirey Decl. ¶ 8.) Therefore, the Court GRANTS Sol Acceptance’s request for cost.

II.        Conclusion

            Defendant Sol Acceptance’s Petition to Compel Arbitration and Stay the Proceedings is GRANTED. DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR COSTS IS GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $444.95 FOR DEFENDANT SOL ACCEPTANCE AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF.

The matter is STAYED and is to be arbitrated before the American Arbitration Association (AAA), as provided by the Agreement.

Post-Arbitration Status Conference is set for September 25, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 25 of the Spring Street Courthouse. 

Counsel are ordered to serve and file a JOINT Report Re:  Status of Arbitration Proceedings (5) court days prior to 09/25/2024.

The 02/10/2025 Trial and the 08/17/2026 Order to Show Cause are advanced and hereby vacated/discharged.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.