Judge: Martha K. Gooding, Case: 2022-01260895, Date: 2022-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Compel Arbitration

The Motion by Defendant Hyundai Motor America (“Defendant”) to compel Plaintiff Sang Hyun Lee (“Plaintiff”) to arbitrate his claims in this action is GRANTED. 

This action is stayed in its entirety pending the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings.  The Court sets an ADR Review Hearing for May 1, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C31, at which time counsel shall appear and advise the Court of the status of the arbitration proceedings.

Section 1281.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) provides, inter alia:

“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.

(c)  A party to the arbitration agreement is also a party to a pending court action or special proceeding with a third party, arising out of the same transaction or series of related transactions and there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact. …”

(Emphasis supplied.) 

Rule 3.1330 of the California Rules of Court provides that a petition to compel arbitration or to stay proceedings pursuant to CCP section 1281.2 must state, in addition to other required allegations, the provisions of the written agreement and the paragraph that provides for arbitration. The provisions must be stated verbatim or a copy must be attached to the petition and incorporated by reference

“‘[W]hen a petition to compel arbitration is filed and accompanied by prima facie evidence of a written agreement to arbitrate the controversy, the court itself must determine whether the agreement exists and, if any defense to its enforcement is raised, whether it is enforceable.  Because the existence of the agreement is a statutory prerequisite to granting the petition, the petitioner bears the burden of proving its existence by a preponderance of the evidence.  If the party opposing the petition raises a defense to enforcement--either fraud in the execution voiding the agreement, or a statutory defense of waiver or revocation (see § 1281.2, subds. (a), (b))--that party bears the burden of producing evidence of, and proving by a preponderance of the evidence, any fact necessary to the defense.’”  Hotels Nevada v. L.A. Pacific Center, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4^th 754, 761, quoting Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal. 4^th 394, 413. 

Here, Defendant has shown the existence of an arbitration agreement. [Ameripour Decl., Exs. 2 and 3.]  The Retail Installment Sales Contract and warranty are submitted with Defendant’s counsel’s declaration.  That is sufficient.  Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (4/3 2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218–219.

Defendant also has shown that Plaintiff refused to arbitrate.  [Ameripour Decl., ¶ 3.]

Plaintiff has not raised any defense to enforcement of the arbitration agreement.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.