Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00455, Date: 2023-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00455    Hearing Date: May 9, 2023    Dept: C

HARRIS v. SHIFT OPERATIONS, LLC, et al.

CASE NO.:  22NWCV00455

HEARING:  5/9/23

#7

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Shift Operations, LLC’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.  The action is STAYED pending arbitration.

Moving party to give NOTICE.

Defendant Shift Operations, LLC (“Shift”) moves to compel arbitration pursuant to CCP § 1281.2.

Plaintiff Christopher Harris alleges:  “On or about November 27, 2021, Plaintiff entered into a written contract (the "Agreement") with Dealer for the purchase of a used 2015 Mazda CX-9 VIN # 3M3TB2BV2F0459946 (the "Subject Vehicle"). Dealer sold the Subject Vehicle to Plaintiff with a service contract from Veritas
Global Protection. By operation of law, because Dealer sold the Subject Vehicle to Plaintiff with a service contract, Dealer provided and implied warranty of merchantability, and an implied warrant 10 that the Subject Vehicle was fit for its intended purpose. Additionally, Dealer provided Plaintiff with a dealer warranty.”  (Complaint, ¶ 10.)  The vehicle contained defects that were concealed from Plaintiff.  (Id., ¶ 19.)  Based thereon, the Complaint asserts causes of action for:

1.    Intentional Misrepresentation

2.    Negligent Misrepresentation

3.    Violation of Business and Professions Code $ 17200

4.    Bond Claim

5.    Violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act

6.    Breach of Implied Warranty

7.    Breach of Express Warranty

8.    Violation of Song-Beverly Act

A written agreement to submit to arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter arising is valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract.  (CCP § 1281.) The court must grant the petition to compel arbitration unless it finds either: no written agreement to arbitrate exists; the right to compel arbitration has been waived; grounds exist for revocation of the agreement; or litigation is pending that may render the arbitration unnecessary or create conflicting rulings on common issues.  (CCP § 1281.2.)

The Court finds that Defendant has met its burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement between the parties. The contract signed by Plaintiff contains an arbitration agreement.  (Chu Decl., Ex. A.)

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that Plaintiff’s claim under the CLRA prohibits arbitration of disputes that seek public injunctive relief, citing McGill v. Citibank, N.A. (2017) 2 Cal.5^th 945 and Mejia v. Dacm Inc. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 691.  However, these cases are distinguishable from the present action.  Both of these cases prohibit injunctive relief “in any forum.”  Here, the arbitration clause does not preclude Plaintiff from seeking a public injunction in arbitration.  

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.  The action is STAYED pending arbitration.