Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Case 21STCV30439 2022-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Randolph M. Hammock, Case: 21STCV30439, Date: 2022-09-21 Tentative Ruling

This is a lemon law action arising out of Plaintiff Jorge Castillo’s (“Plaintiff”) purchase of a new 2017 Ford Explorer manufactured and/or distributed by Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Defendant”).

On February 23, 2022, this court granted Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff now brings his own “motion to compel arbitration,” contending that Defendant has not complied with the terms of the arbitration agreement. Plaintiff asks this court to order Defendant to arbitrate this action before JAMS or Judicate West, rather than AAA. Defendant opposed.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Arbitration before JAMS or Judicate West is DENIED. Unless the parties mutually agree otherwise, this case is to be arbitrated before the AAA.

A proceeding to compel arbitration is in essence a suit in equity to compel specific performance of a contract. (Freeman v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. (1975) 14 Cal.3d 473, 479.) Such enforcement may be sought by a party to the arbitration agreement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1280, subd. (e)(1).)

The petition to compel arbitration functions as a motion and is to be heard in the manner of a motion, i.e., the facts are to be proven by affidavit or declaration and documentary evidence with oral testimony taken only in the court’s discretion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.2; Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413-414.) The petition to compel must set forth the provisions of the written agreement and the arbitration clause verbatim, or such provisions must be attached and incorporated by reference. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1330; see Condee v. Longwood Mgmt. Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218-219.)

In ruling on a petition to compel arbitration, the court must determine whether a valid agreement to arbitration exists, and if it does, whether the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue. (Omar v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 955, 961.)

“The party seeking arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement, and the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving any defense, such as unconscionability.” (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236 (Pinnacle).)

“There is no public policy favoring arbitration of disputes which the parties have not agreed to arbitrate.” (Engineers & Architects Assn. v. Community Development Dept. (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 644, 653.) Nevertheless, the strong public policy promoting private arbitration of civil disputes gives rise to a presumption in favor of arbitrability (Boghos v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London (2005) 36 Cal.4th 495, 502), imposes the burden of proof on the party resisting arbitration (Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital v. Blue Cross of Cal. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 677, 686-687), and compels the Court to construe liberally the terms of the arbitration agreement (Bigler v. Harker School (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 727, 738) and resolve all doubts in favor of arbitration (Vianna v. Doctors’ Management Co. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1186, 1189).

Plaintiff purchased the subject Vehicle from Puente Hills Ford (“PHF”). Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a Retail Installment Contract (“RISC”) on July 2, 2017.The RISC contains an arbitration provision. On February 23, 2022, this Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.

Plaintiff now represents that “[b]etween March 11, 2022 and August 15, 2022, the parties have met and conferred to attempt to reach an agreement on an Arbitration forum. Plaintiff has provided multiple arbitration forums for Ford to consider and Ford has steadfastly rejected all of them and instead only offering the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") and nothing else.” (Mtn. 1: 14-17.) Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s forum choice, AAA, and instead requests the court order the parties arbitrate with JAMS or Judicate West.

The arbitration provision within the RISC includes the following language: “You [Plaintiff] may choose the American Arbitration Association, 163 3 Broadway, 10th Floor, New York, New York 10019 (www.adr.org), or any other organization to conduct the arbitration subject to our [Defendant’s] approval.” (See Barry Decl., Exhibit 3 [emphasis added].)

Plaintiff contends that by failing to agree to a service besides AAA, Defendant is “disregarding the forum selection clause and unilaterally forcing Plaintiff into arbitration in a forum that is patently unfair to consumers.” (Id. 1: 27-28.)

This argument fails. Rather, it is Plaintiff who is attempting to disregard the plain-language of the clause. While the arbitration provision does provide that Plaintiff may propose an arbitration service aside from AAA, Defendant has the final word on the matter. The arbitration provision makes clear that Plaintiff’s selection of an arbitration service provider is “subject to [Defendant’s] approval.” (Id.) Accordingly, Plaintiff can commence arbitration with AAA, or he can commence arbitration with any other organization, as long as Ford approves. Here, Defendant has declined Plaintiff’s proposals to use a service other than AAA, by exercising its contractual right to do just that.

Plaintiff’s argument that other arbitration services are more “consumer friendly” is of no consequence. When Plaintiff signed his agreement to arbitrate, he agreed to use AAA or any other service “subject to [Defendant’s] approval.” This mandate is plain and unambiguous.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Arbitration before JAMS or Judicate West is DENIED. Unless the parties mutually agree otherwise, this case is to be arbitrated before the AAA.

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept49@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.