Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 24CHCV01653, Date: 2024-08-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV01653    Hearing Date: August 28, 2024    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 8/28/24

Case #24CHCV01653

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Motion filed on 7/18/24.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Second Motor Group of Valencia, LLC dba Mercedes-Benz of Valencia

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Laura Samarneh

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order: (1) compelling Plaintiff Laura Samarneh to arbitrate all claims in accordance with the arbitration agreement and (2) staying this action pending the outcome of the arbitration. 

RULING: The hearing will be continued. 

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On 5/1/24, Plaintiff Laura Samarneh (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendant Second Motor Group of Valencia, LLC dba Mercedes-Benz of Valencia (Defendant) and Does 1-10 alleging one cause of action for Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty.  On 6/3/24, Defendant answer the complaint.

On 7/18/24, Defendant requested that Plaintiff stipulate to arbitration pursuant to the arbitration provision contained in the Motor Vehicle Lease Agreement (Lease) which underlies Plaintiff’s claim.  (Ameripour Decl. ¶3).  Defendant contends that Plaintiff did not agree to stipulate to arbitration.  Id.  Therefore, on the same date (7/18/24), Defendant filed and served the instant motion seeking an order: (1) compelling Plaintiff to arbitrate all claims in accordance with the arbitration agreement and (2) staying this action pending the outcome of the arbitration.  No opposition or other response to the motion has been filed.

ANALYSIS

The proofs of service for the motion and supporting documents indicate that they were served on Plaintiff’s counsel on 7/18/24 by electronic transmission at eservice@calattorneys.com. 

eCourt shows that the email address of record for Plaintiff’s counsel is mhr@calattorneys.com which corresponds to attorney Michael H. Rosenstein at California Consumer Attorneys, P.C.  The complaint lists the email address of record plus the email addresses of two other attorneys at the firm.  The complaint also lists E-Service at eservice@calattorneys.com which is email address where the motion was served.

Based on the foregoing, it is not clear that Plaintiff received proper notice of the motion. 

Additionally, the Court finds attorney Ameripour’s declaration regarding the request that Plaintiff stipulate to arbitrate to be too vague.  Attorney Ameripour merely states that “[o]n July 18, 2024 my office asked Plaintiff stipulate to arbitration.  Plaintiff did not agree to stipulate to arbitration.”  (See Ameripour Decl. ¶3).  It is not clear who from defense counsel’s office made the request, to whom the request was made, how the request was made and/or whether Plaintiff through her counsel definitively stated that Plaintiff would not agree to arbitrate or whether Plaintiff’s counsel merely failed to respond.  If the request was made by email to the same address where the motion was served, which is not the email address of record for Plaintiff’s counsel, and no response was received, the request may not have been received.   

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the hearing on the motion will be continued.  Defendant is ordered to re-serve the motion and notice of continuance on Plaintiff’s counsel’s email address of record mhr@calattorneys.com as well as eservice@calattorneys.com.

Defendant’s counsel is also ordered to file and serve a supplemental declaration explaining how the request to submit the matter to arbitration was made and Plaintiff’s response thereto. 

The Court also notes that Defendant has failed to electronically bookmark the exhibits attached to the Ameripour declaration as required by CRC 3.1110(f)(4).  Counsel for the parties are warned that failure to comply with this requirement in the future may result in matters being continued so that papers can be resubmitted in compliance, papers not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.