Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 23STCV12500, Date: 2024-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV12500    Hearing Date: January 23, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant Tesla, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

Motion to Compel Binding Arbitration

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion.  No opposition papers were filed.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

The court grants defendant Tesla, Inc.’s request for judicial notice.  (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

DISCUSSION

Defendant Tesla, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves the court for an order (1) compelling plaintiff Joseph Delpriore (“Plaintiff”) to arbitrate all the claims alleged in the Complaint, and (2) staying this action pending completion of arbitration.

A written provision in any contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.[1]¿ (9 U.S.C. § 2.)¿ The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) requires courts to direct parties to proceed to arbitration on issues covered by an arbitration agreement upon a finding that the making of the arbitration agreement is not in issue.¿ (9 U.S.C. § 4; Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys. (9th Cir. 2000) 207 F.3d 1126, 1130.)¿ “The court’s role under the [FAA] is therefore limited to determining (1) whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and, if it does, (2) whether the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue.”¿ (Chiron Corp., supra, 207 F.3d at p. 1130.)¿ The FAA reflects “both a ‘liberal federal policy favoring arbitration,’ [citation], and the ‘fundamental principle that arbitration is a matter of contract,’ [citation].”¿ (AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. 333, 339.)¿¿ 

“‘ “The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement, while the party opposing the petition bears the burden of establishing a defense to the agreement’s enforcement.” ’”¿ (Beco v. Fast Auto Loans (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 292, 302.)¿ The burden of production as to this finding shifts in a three-step process.¿ (Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 165.)¿ First, the moving party bears the burden of producing prima facie evidence of a written agreement to arbitrate, which can be met by attaching a copy of the arbitration agreement purporting to bear the opponent’s signature. (Ibid.)¿ If the moving party meets this burden, the opposing party bears, in the second step, the burden of producing evidence to challenge its authenticity.¿ (Ibid.)¿ If the opposing party produces evidence sufficient to meet this burden, the final step requires the moving party to establish, with admissible evidence, a valid arbitration agreement between the parties.¿ (Ibid.)¿¿¿ 

The court finds that Defendant has met its burden of producing prima facie evidence of an agreement to arbitrate.

            Defendant has submitted evidence showing that, on November 21, 2021, Plaintiff submitted an order for the subject vehicle with Defendant.  (Kim Decl., ¶ 3.)  The Motor Vehicle Order Agreement includes an agreement to arbitrate (the “Arbitration Agreement”), which states, in relevant part, the following:  “If you have a concern or dispute, please send a written notice describing it and your desired resolution to resolutions@tesla.com.  If not resolved within 60 days, you agree that any dispute arising out of or relating to any aspect of the relationship between you and Tesla will not be decided by a judge or jury but instead by a single arbitrator in an arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association . . . .”  (Kim Decl., Motor Vehicle Order Agreement, p. 3.)  The Arbitration Agreement further states that it “includes claims arising before this Agreement, such as claims related to statements about our products.”  (Ibid.)  It also sets forth a procedure to opt out of arbitration.  (Ibid)

Although the Arbitration Agreement does not bear Plaintiff’s signature, Defendant has submitted the declaration of Raymond Kim, a Staff Business Resolution Partner for Defendant, in which Kim states that (1) Plaintiff would not have been able to place their order for the subject vehicle without clicking the “Place Order” button on Defendant’s website; (2) before placing the order, Plaintiff would have (i) seen text advising them that they were agreeing to the Order Agreement’s terms and conditions and (ii) had the option to click on a hyperlink to view those terms; (3) once executed, the Order Agreement becomes visible to consumers on their account with Defendant; (4) once executed, the Order Agreement is automatically saved to the electronic document storage system; and (5) Defendant’s records show that Plaintiff did not opt out of the Arbitration Agreement.  (Kim Decl., ¶¶ 2, 4-5.)  Thus, Defendant has submitted evidence showing that Plaintiff, when placing the order for the subject vehicle, agreed to the terms of the Motor Vehicle Order Agreement, including its Arbitration Agreement.

The court therefore finds that Defendant has submitted evidence sufficient to show that Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an agreement to arbitrate claims arising from the Motor Vehicle Order Agreement.

The court further finds that Defendant has shown that the Arbitration Agreement encompasses the claims alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

As set forth above, the Arbitration Agreement extends to “any dispute between [Plaintiff] and [Defendant] and [Defendant’s] affiliates[,]” including any disputes “arising out of or relating to any aspect of the relationship between [Plaintiff] and [Defendant] . . . .”  (Kim Decl., Ex. 1, Motor Vehicle Order Agreement, p. 3.)  In their Complaint, Plaintiff has alleged four causes of action against Defendant for (1) violation of subdivision (d) of Civil Code section 1793.2,           (2) violation of subdivision (b) of Civil Code section 1793.2, (3) violation of subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code section 1793.2, and (4) breach of the implied warranty of habitability.  Plaintiff’s causes of action are based on the allegations that Defendant did not conform the subject vehicle to the applicable express and implied warranties within a reasonable time and that Defendant failed to provide to its repair facilities sufficient literature to effect repairs.  (Compl., ¶¶ 14-15, 20, 24, 26, 31-33.)  The court therefore finds that Plaintiff’s causes of action arise from the relationship between Plaintiff, as the consumer, and Defendant, as the seller and manufacturer.  

            The court finds that Plaintiff has not met their burden of producing evidence to challenge the authenticity of the Arbitration Agreement.  Plaintiff did not file opposition papers with the court arguing that they did not agree to the Arbitration Agreement or that it is unenforceable for any reason.  

            The court therefore grants Defendant’s motion.  The court orders that this action is stayed pending completion of arbitration.  (9 U.S.C. § 3.)

ORDER

The court grants defendant Tesla, Inc.’s motion to compel binding arbitration.

The court orders (1) plaintiff Joseph Delpriore and defendant Tesla Motors, Inc. to submit all the claims alleged in plaintiff Joseph Delpriore’s Complaint to binding arbitration, and (2) this action is stayed until arbitration is completed.

The court sets an Order to Show Cause re completion of arbitration for hearing on August 22, 2024, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 53. 

The court orders defendant Tesla, Inc. to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  January 23, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court