Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV01736, Date: 2023-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01736, Date: 2023-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01736 Hearing Date: December 19, 2023 Dept: C

Shyheim Parm vs Shift Operations LLC, et al.

Case No.: 22NWCV01736

Hearing Date: 12/19/23 at 9:30am

Tentative Ruling

Defendant Shift Operation LLC’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

Background

This is a lemon law case.

On or about June 23, 2022, Plaintiff SHYHEIM PARM (“Plaintiff”) purchased a used 2015 Infiniti Q50, VIN JN1BV7AP4FM356051 (the “Vehicle”), from Defendant SHIFT OPERATIONS, LLC (“Defendant”).

On December 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant alleging violation of the Song-Beverly Act, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair Competition Law Business & Professions Code § 17200.

Defendant now files a motion to compel arbitration.

No Opposition filed as of December 15, 2023.

Legal Standard

Under California law, the trial court has authority to compel arbitration pursuant to CCP §1281.2 where a written agreement for such arbitration exists and one of the parties refuses to arbitrate. Specifically, the statute provides that, “[o]n petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement arbitrate the controversy exists.” The statute further sets forth four grounds upon which the trial court may refuse to compel arbitration: (a) the right to compel arbitration was waived, (b) recission of the agreement, (c) there is a pending action or special proceeding with a third party, arising out of the same transaction; and (d) petitioner is a state or federally chartered depository institution.

“[T]he petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence . . . .”¿¿(Giuliano v. Inland Empire Personnel, Inc.¿(2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284¿(Guiliano).)¿“In determining whether an arbitration agreement applies to a specific dispute, the court may examine only the agreement itself and the complaint filed by the party refusing arbitration [citation]. The court should attempt to give effect to the parties' intentions, in light of the usual and ordinary meaning of the contractual language and the¿circumstances under which the agreement was made.”¿¿(Weeks v. Crow¿(1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 350, 353.)¿ “To determine whether a contractual arbitration clause requires arbitration of a particular controversy, the controversy is first identified and the issue is whether that controversy is within the scope of the contractual arbitration clause.”¿¿(Titolo¿v. Cano¿(2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 310, 316.)¿ “Doubts as to whether an arbitration clause applies to a particular dispute are to be resolved in favor of sending the parties to arbitration. The court should order them to arbitrate unless it is clear that the arbitration clause cannot be interpreted to cover the dispute.”¿¿(California Correctional Peace Officers¿Ass'n¿v. State¿(2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 198, 205.)¿¿¿

“[A] party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense. [Citation.] In these summary proceedings, the trial court sits as a trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, as well as oral testimony received at the court's discretion, to reach a final determination.”¿¿(Giuliano, supra, at p. 1284.)¿

Discussion

Plaintiff purchased the Vehicle from Defendant and executed a contract on or around June 23, 2022 (“The Contract”). The Contract is a seven-page document, with signature lines for the buyer in the bottom left of each of page. (Chu Decl., Exh. A at pp. 1-7.) Plaintiff’s signature appears in several places, including pages 1, 2, 3 and 6. (Id.)

On the right-hand side of the first page of the Contract, there is a box that reads as follows: Agreement to Arbitrate: By signing below, you agree that, pursuant to the Arbitration Provision on page 7 of this contract, you or we may elect to resolve any dispute by neutral, binding arbitration and not by a court action. See the Arbitration Provision for additional information concerning the agreement to arbitrate. (Chu Decl., Exh. A at p. 1.)

Plaintiff’s signature appears on the signature line within that box. (Id.) The referenced arbitration provision, appearing by itself on page 7 of the Contract, reads in relevant part:

EITHER YOU OR WE MAY CHOOSE TO HAVE ANY DISPUTE BETWEEEN US DECIDED BY ARBITRATION AND NOT IN COURT OR BY JURY TRIAL. (Chu Decl., Exh. A at p. 7, emphasis in original.)

The agreement goes on to define “any dispute” as a 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 (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.” (Chu Decl., Exh. A at p. 7.)

The agreement states Defendant will pay Plaintiff’s filing, administration, service or case management fee, and Plaintiff’s arbitrator or hearing fee up to a maximum of $5000, unless the law or the rules of the chosen arbitration organization require Defendant to pay more. (Id.)

Moreover, Plaintiff executed a document entitled Buyer Acknowledgment on which Plaintiff’s signature appears on page 2. (Chu Decl., Exh. B.) The agreement reads in relevant part: “Except for small claims and claims to protect a party’s intellectual property rights, all other disputes between the parties (including those related to use of the Shift platform or those arising before this Agreement) shall be resolved by binding arbitration. Before initiating arbitration, each party must first attempt to settle the dispute through negotiation with Shift.” (Id.)

Defendant has demonstrated the existence of an enforceable agreement to arbitrate. The motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.