Judge: Nick A. Dourbetas, Case: 2021-01236532, Date: 2023-01-06 Tentative Ruling

1. Motion to Compel Arbitration
2. Motion to Compel Arbitration
3. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

4. Case Management Conference

Motion No. 1:

Defendants PAC Auto Group, Inc., dba Pacific Auto Center’s and Ally Bank’s Motion to Compel Arbitration has already been GRANTED. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2, et seq.)

This motion is continued solely as to the issue of who will act as arbitrator.

The court treats plaintiffs’ opposition as a petition under California Code of Civil Procedure, section 1281.6 to appoint an arbitrator. Plaintiffs and defendants are to submit a joint list of arbitrators to the court within fifteen days. From that list, the court will nominate five arbitrators and advise the parties by minute order. The parties shall have five days from receipt of the nominated list to agree upon an arbitrator, or the court will assign the arbitrator to arbitrate the case. (See  Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.6.)

Defendants PAC Auto Group, Inc., dba Pacific Auto Center’s and Ally Bank shall give notice.

Motion No. 2:

Defendant Ford Motor Company’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED in part and CONTINUED in part. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2, et seq.)

The motion to compel binding arbitration is GRANTED. 

Defendant met its burden to show a written arbitration agreement exists that covers plaintiff’s claims.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; see also Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413 [elements]; (Sirey Dec. Exh. 1, pg. 2).)

All of plaintiffs’ causes of action “arise out of” or are “in connection with” the purchase, sale and condition of the subject vehicle.   (See Retail Installment Sales Contract;  see EFund Capital Partners v. Pless (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1311, 1322; Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital v. Blue Cross of California (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 677, 684.)

Plaintiffs failed to meet their shifted burden to show grounds for not enforcing the arbitration agreement between the parties, specifically that defendants waived their right to arbitration, and that the arbitration agreement was not applicable to plaintiff’s claims against Ford. (See Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486, 496–99.)

Plaintiffs are ordered to submit their claims against defendant Ford Motor Company to binding arbitration pursuant to their agreement.

This action is stayed pending completion of arbitration. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.) 

This motion is continued solely as to the issue of who will act as arbitrator.

The court treats plaintiffs’ opposition as a petition under California Code of Civil Procedure, section 1281.6 to appoint an arbitrator. Plaintiffs and defendants are to submit a joint list of arbitrators to the court within fifteen days. From that list, the court will nominate five arbitrators and advise the parties by minute order. The parties shall have five days from receipt of the nominated list to agree upon an arbitrator, or the court will assign the arbitrator to arbitrate the case. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.6.)

The court rules as follows on plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections:

Declaration of Lilly Nizam

1-2     Overruled.

3.       Sustained as to words “…violating the terms of the arbitration agreement…” , Improper Argument, denied as to balance.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted. Judicial notice is limited to the existence of, filing of, and legal effect of the pleadings, but not as to the truth of disputed factual matters therein.

Defendant Ford Motor Company shall give notice.

Motion No. 3:

This motion is moot as the Court orders all parties to arbitration.

The case management conference for January 6, 2023 is vacated.  The Court sets a status conference re binding arbitration for October 2, 2023 at 9:00 a.m.

Defendant Ford Motor Company shall give notice.