Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV01087, Date: 2024-04-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01087, Date: 2024-04-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV01087 Hearing Date: April 2, 2024 Dept: C

Luz Rincon vs American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al.

Case No.: 23NWCV01087

Hearing Date: April 2, 2024 @ 9:30 AM

Tentative Ruling

Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.

Defendant to give notice.

Background

This is a lemon law action. On May 5, 2019, Plaintiff Luz Rincon (“Plaintiff”) leased a 2019 Honda HR-V from Honda World Downey. On April 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Compliant against American Honda Motor Company, Inc., alleging various defects during the warranty period and negligent repair claim against Galpin Motos, Inc.

Evidentiary Objections and Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections

The Objection to the Declaration of Andres F. Michel in its entirety is OVERRULED.

Request for Judicial Notice

The Three Requests for Judicial Notice are GRANTED.

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 signed a lease agreement on May 5, 2022 and executive the Contract on the same day. The Contract is third pages, with signature lines next to the Arbitration agreement. (Manigo Decl., Exhibit A.)

The Contract states: “The parties agree that any unresolved disputes shall be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration clause (Section 52). By initialing this Section, I am confirming that I have read this Section and the Arbitration clause, including the method of opting out of arbitration.” (Manigo Decl., Exhibit A, ¶ 15.)

Plaintiff’s signature appears on the signature line within that box. (Id.) The referenced arbitration provision, reads in relevant part:

“By signing the Arbitration Consent, YOU elect to have disputes resolved by arbitration. YOU, HONDA or any involved third party may pursue a Claim. "Claim" means any dispute between YOU, HONDA, or any involved third party relating to your account, this Lease, or our relationship, including any application, the Vehicle, its performance and any representations, omissions or warranties. “Claim" does not include personal injury or wrongful death claims. YOU or HONDA may seek remedies in small claims court or provisional judicial remedies without arbitrating.” (Manigo Decl., Exhibit A, ¶ 52.)

In the agreement, Defendant Honda is found responsible for paying Plaintiff’s filing and arbitrator fees up to $5,000.00, unless the law requires more. (Id.)

Defendant Honda has shown that there is a valid arbitration clause in the contract, which was signed by Plaintiff.

Accordingly, Defendant has established there is an enforceable agreement to arbitrate. The motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED, the action is stayed pending the completion of arbitration.