Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV02233, Date: 2024-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV02233, Date: 2024-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV02233 Hearing Date: February 6, 2024 Dept: C

Francisco Castellon vs Cerritos Ford, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 23NWCV02233

Hearing Date: February 06, 2024 @ 9:30 AM

Tentative Ruling

I. Defendant Cerritos Ford, Inc. Motion to Compel Arbitration as to Plaintiff Francisco Castellon is GRANTED, the proceeding is stayed pending result of the arbitration.

Moving party to give notice.

Background

This is a lemon law lawsuit. On or about August 5, 2022, Plaintiff Francisco Castellon (“Plaintiff”) purchased a used 2014 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray, VIN: 1G1YA2D7XE5105828 (“Vehicle”) from Defendant Cerritos Ford, Inc. (“Defendant Ford”). (Complaint, ¶ 9.)

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 Ford and executed the Contract on or around August 5, 2022. The Contract is a seven-page document, with signature lines for the buyer in the bottom left of each of page. (Holmerud Decl., Exh. A at pp. 1-7.) Plaintiff’s signature appears in several places. (Id.)

The contract states: “You agree to the terms of this contract. You confirm that before you signed this contract, we gave it to you, and you were free to take it and review it. You acknowledge that you have read all pages of this contract, including the arbitration provision on page 5, before signing below. You confirm that you received a completely filled-in copy when you signed it.” (Id.)

Plaintiff’s signature appears on the signature line within that box. (Id.) The referenced arbitration provision, appearing by itself on page 1 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. (Holmerud Decl., Exh. A at p. 5, 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.” (Holmerud Decl., Exh. A at p. 5.)

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

Defendant Ford has shown that there is a valid arbitration clause in the contract which has been signed by Plaintiff.

The Court now turns its attention to the claims regarding the public injunctive relief.

Plaintiff argues that his Fifth Cause of Action for violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act claim and prayer for an injunction cannot be compelled to arbitration because an arbitration agreement cannot waive the right to “public injunctive relief.” (McGill v. Citibank, N.A. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 945, 961.) However, “public injunctive relief” is defined as a request that protects the public at large; the private dispute at play must be merely incidental. (Id.) That is not the case here. Plaintiff’s complaint is that Defendant Ford sold them a car without disclosing a known condition of the vehicle. (Complaint ¶¶ 72, 73). The injunction they seek amounts to an order that Defendant Ford comply with the law.

Accordingly, Defendant Ford has established there is an enforceable agreement to arbitrate. The motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED as to Plaintiff. The matter is stayed pending the outcome of arbitration.