Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23STLC02980, Date: 2023-10-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC02980    Hearing Date: December 19, 2023    Dept: 26

Martin v. Auto Pros, Inc., et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS

(CCP §§ 1281.2, et seq., 638)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Richard J. Martin’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. THE ACTION IS STAYED PENDING ARBITRATION.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING STATUS OF ARBITRATION IS SET FOR JUNE 18, 2024 AT 9:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

ANALYSIS:

On May 5, 2023, Plaintiff Richard J. Martinez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Auto Pros, Inc. dba Cars 4U (“Defendant Auto Pros”), Capital One Auto Finance, a division of Capital One, N.A. (“Defendant Capital One”), and Western Surety Company (“Defendant Western”).

Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings on July 18, 2023. Defendant Capital One filed an Answer to the Complaint on September 29, 2023 but no opposition to the instant Motion.

The Motion initially came for hearing on October 17, 2023 and was continued to allow Plaintiff to demonstrate service of the Motion and hearing date on Defendant Capital One. (Minute Order, 10/17/23.) On October 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed proof of service of the Motion and continued notice of hearing. (Proof of Service and Notice of Continuance, filed 10/26/23.) To date, no opposition to the Motion has been filed.

Discussion

Plaintiff brings the instant Motion seeking to compel Defendant Capital One to submit to arbitration:

On 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 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 the revocation of the agreement.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2, subds. (a)-(b).) Plaintiff provides evidence of the existence of the arbitration agreement in RISC, which was entered into with Defendant Auto Pros. (Motion, Sadr Decl., Exh. 2 pp. 1, 7 at “Arbitration Provision”.) Plaintiff also contends Defendant Capital One is now the holder of the RISC and subject to the arbitration provision under the contract terms. (Id. at ¶¶5-7 and Exh. 2, p. 5 at “Notice.”) Based on the foregoing, the Court finds the existence of an enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties.

The parties have been unable to come to an agreement regarding arbitration. (Id. at ¶¶3-4 and Exh. 2.) Plaintiff filed for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) on December 8, 2022. (Id. at ¶8.) The request for arbitration was accepted on January 16, 2023 and AAA requested payment from Defendant Capital One by January 30, 2023. (Id. at ¶9 and Exh. 4.) Defendant Capital One failed to make the payments as demanded by the AAA, which as a result, was required to close the arbitration case. (Id. at ¶¶10-11 and Exhs. 5-6.) Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant Capital One to arbitration.

Plaintiff has also demonstrated that the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute through the 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, Sadr Decl., Exh. 1, p. 4 at “Arbitration Provision.”) Defendant Capital One has not indicated it does not approve of the AAA, but due to AAA’s current refusal to arbitrate, Plaintiff requests that a court order selecting AAA as the forum for arbitration.

In light of the Motion to Compel Arbitration being granted, a stay of the action is appropriate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Richard J. Martin’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. THE ACTION IS STAYED PENDING ARBITRATION.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING STATUS OF ARBITRATION IS SET FOR JUNE 18, 2024 AT 9:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.