Judge Richard S. Whitney, Case 37-2023-00037575-CU-FR-CTL 2024-03-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2023-00037575-CU-FR-CTL, Date: 2024-03-22 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 20, 2024

03/22/2024 10:30:00 AM C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Fraud Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00037575-CU-FR-CTL GLOSTER VS DRIVETIME CAR SALES COMPANY LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION is GRANTED.

Defendants DRIVETIME CAR SALES COMPANY, LLC and BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION ('Defendants') seek to compel Plaintiffs Camille A. Gloster and Jameel K. Bruner's ('Plaintiffs') claims to arbitration. Failure to file an opposition to the petition indicates Plaintiffs' acquiescence that the petition is meritorious. (L.R. 2.1.19(B) ['The court may deem a lack of opposition to be a concession that a motion is meritorious']; See California Rules of Court, Rule 8.54(c).) CCP section 1281.2 provides: 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....

(CCP §1281.2.) The moving party must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of the arbitration agreement and the dispute is covered by the agreement. (Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin.

Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413.) The burden then shifts to the resisting party to prove by a preponderance of the evidence a ground for denial, e.g., unconscionability. (Id.) Defendants have met their burden to demonstrate there is an arbitration agreement that covers the disputes at issue in this action. Plaintiffs have not met their burden to demonstrate the arbitration agreement either does not exist or is not enforceable. The petition is granted. Pursuant to CCP section 1281.4, the Court stays this matter pending the arbitration. A status conference is hereby set for September 20, 2024, at 10:00 am.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3040856 68