Miguel A. Guzman v. Nissan North America, Inc.

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Nissan North America, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Miguel A. Guzman (unopposed)

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff Miguel A. Guzman bring this action for violations of the Song-Beverly Act against Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. Plaintiff alleges his vehicle exhibited engine, electrical, and suspension system defects, among other things.

Defendant now moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to arbitrate the dispute pursuant to CCP § 1281 et seq.  Plaintiff has not opposed.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. 

This case is stayed pending arbitration.  Any and all future dates are advanced and vacated. An OSC re: Dismissal/Arbitration Status Conference is set for 2/8/24 at 8:30 a.m.

Defendant to give notice, unless waived.  

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Compel Arbitration

1. Judicial Notice

Pursuant to Defendant’s Request, the court takes judicial notice of Exhibits 1, 2, and 3.

2. Legal Standard

“[T]he petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence . . . .”  (Giuliano v. Inland Empire Personnel, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284).  “In determining whether an arbitration agreement applies to a specific dispute, the court may examine only the agreement itself and the complaint filed by the party refusing arbitration [citation]. The court should attempt to give effect to the parties' intentions, in light of the usual and ordinary meaning of the contractual language and the circumstances under which the agreement was made.”  (Weeks v. Crow (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 350, 353).  “Doubts as to whether an arbitration clause applies to a particular dispute are to be resolved in favor of sending the parties to arbitration. The court should order them to arbitrate unless it is clear that the arbitration clause cannot be interpreted to cover the dispute.”  (California Correctional Peace Officers Ass'n v. State (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 198, 205).  

“[A] party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense. [Citation.] In these summary proceedings, the trial court sits as a trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, as well as oral testimony received at the court's discretion, to reach a final determination.”  (Giuliano v. Inland Empire Personnel, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284).

“If a court of competent jurisdiction, whether in this State or not, has ordered arbitration of a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State, the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies. . . .”  (CCP § 1281.4.)

3. Existence of Arbitration Agreement

California has a strong public policy in favor of arbitration as an expeditious and cost-effective way of resolving disputes.  “Even so, parties can only be compelled to arbitrate when they have agreed to do so.” (Avila v. S. California Specialty Care, Inc. (2018) 20 Cal. App. 5th 835, 843.)  “The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement.”  (Id.) An arbitration agreement is a contractual agreement. “General contract law principles include that ‘[t]he basic goal of contract interpretation is to give effect to the parties’ mutual intent at the time of contracting. [Citations.] ... The words of a contract are to be understood in their ordinary and popular sense.” [Citations.]  (Garcia v. Expert Staffing W., 73 Cal. App. 5th 408, 412–13.)  

In short, when moving to compel arbitration, “the moving party bears the burden of producing ‘prima facie evidence of a written agreement to arbitrate the controversy.’” (Gamboa v. Ne. Cmty. Clinic (2021) 72 Cal. App. 5th 158, 165.) The moving party “can meet its initial burden by attaching to the [motion or] petition a copy of the arbitration agreement purporting to bear the [opposing party's] signature.” (Id.) “If the moving party meets its initial prima facie burden and the opposing party does not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement, then nothing more is required for the moving party to meet its burden of persuasion.” (Id.)

The moving party has, in fact, submitted ‘prima facie evidence of a written agreement to arbitrate the controversy,’ and as such, the moving party has met its initial burden of proof.  

For whatever reason Plaintiff has chosen not to file any opposition whatsoever to this motion.  As such, this Court will conclude that Plaintiff is now willing to participate in the proposed binding arbitration, whether or not he was legally required to do so in this particular case.

So be it.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   February 8, 2023 ___________________________________

Randolph M. Hammock

Judge of the Superior Court

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.