Judge: Shirley K. Watkins, Case: 22VECV01170, Date: 2022-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22VECV01170    Hearing Date: December 12, 2022    Dept: T

            [TENTATIVE] ORDER:  Defendant Hyundai Motor America’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay the Action is DENIED.

            Defendant Hyundai Motor America’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED but not as to any hearsay or facts in dispute.

Plaintiff Wendy Reaux Scalzo’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED but only as to the existence of the findings of fact and not as to the truth of the findings of fact on issues in dispute in the present case.

Introduction

            Defendant Hyundai Motor America (Defendant) moved to compel arbitration against Plaintiff Wendy A. Reaux Scalzo (Plaintiff.)  Defendant further requested a stay of the action.

            Procedure

             Plaintiff requested judicial notice of a ruling on a motion to compel arbitration where Defendant was also a party and by another department of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.  The court may take notice of the existence of findings of fact made in the other action, but may not accept them as true on issues in dispute in the present case (i.e., the other court's findings are not indisputably true.) Otherwise, the judge in the other case would be made “infallible” on all matters, usurping the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel (which are limited to final judgments).  (Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1565; Fowler v. Howell (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1746, 1749; Kilroy v. State of California (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 140, 145-148.)

            Discussion 

            In deciding a petition to compel arbitration, trial courts must decide first whether an enforceable arbitration agreement exists between the parties, and then determine the second gateway issue whether the claims are covered within the scope of the agreement.  (Omar v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 955, 961.)  The Court sustains Plaintiff’s evidentiary objection to Defendant Counsel’s declaration submitting the purported Retail Installment Sale Contract (Ameripour Decl. par. 4, Exh. 2.)  Because Defendant did not met its burden of establishing that there is an arbitration agreement, Defendant has not proven up the first gateway issue on a motion to compel arbitration. 

            The motion to compel arbitration and to stay the action is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.