Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Case Number: 23STCV11097, Date: 2023-11-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 23STCV11097, Date: 2023-11-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV11097 Hearing Date: November 2, 2023 Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE: November 2, 2023

CASE NAME: Adi Dweck v. Tesla Motors, Inc.

CASE NO.: 23STCV11097

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Tesla Motors, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of October 30, 2023

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1. An Order Compelling Arbitration;

2. An Order staying the action.

TENTATIVE RULING:

1. Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED;

2. Action is STAYED pending Arbitration.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On May 16, 2023, Plaintiff Adi Dweck (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendant Tesla Motors, Inc. (Defendant) with four causes of action for: (1) Violation of Civil Code §1793.2(d); (2) Violation of Civil Code §1793.2(b); (3) Violation of Civil Code §1793.2(a)(3); and (4) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability.

According to the Complaint, this claim concerns Plaintiff’s 2022 Tesla Y, VIN 7SAYGAEE6NF420172 (the Subject Vehicle). Plaintiff alleges that they purchased the Subject Vehicle on or about October 3, 2021. Plaintiff alleges that the Subject Vehicle manifested defects including covered by Defendant’s express written warranties, including: electrical, structural, camera, drivability, brakes, battery, and infotainment system. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to service or repair the Subject Vehicle. Plaintiff revokes acceptance of the Subject Vehicle.

Defendant filed the instant motion to compel arbitration on August 18, 2023.

On August 31, 2023, the Court advanced the hearing date on the motion to compel arbitration from February 24, 2024 to November 3, 2023.

On October 20, 2023, the Court advanced the hearing date on the motion to compel arbitration from November 3, 2023, to November 2, 2023.

Plaintiff’s opposition was due on or before October 20, 2023. Plaintiff did not file an opposition.

Defendant did not file a reply.

LEGAL STANDARD:

Under California law, the trial court has authority to compel arbitration pursuant to CCP §1281.2 where a written agreement for such arbitration exists and one of the parties refuses to arbitrate. Specifically, the statute provides that, “[o]n 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 arbitrate the controversy exists.” The statute further sets forth four grounds upon which the trial court may refuse to compel arbitration: (a) the right to compel arbitration was waived, (b) recission of the agreement, (c) there is a pending action or special proceeding with a third party, arising out of the same transaction; and (d) petitioner is a state or federally chartered depository institution.

“[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¿(Guiliano).)¿“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.)¿ “To determine whether a contractual arbitration clause requires arbitration of a particular controversy, the controversy is first identified and the issue is whether that controversy is within the scope of the contractual arbitration clause.”¿¿(Titolo¿v. Cano¿(2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 310, 316.)¿ “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, supra, at p. 1284.)¿

ANALYSIS:

Existence of Arbitration Agreement

In determining the enforceability of an arbitration agreement, the court considers “two ‘gateway issues’ of arbitrability: (1) whether there was an agreement to arbitrate between the parties, and (2) whether the agreement covered the dispute at issue.”¿ (Omar v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 955, 961 (Omar).)¿¿¿

1. Agreement Between Parties:

The moving party can meet its initial burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement by attaching a copy of the Agreement to this motion bearing the signature of the opposing party. (See Bannister v. Marinidence Opco, LLC (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 541, 541-543 [“The party seeking arbitration can meet its initial burden by attaching to the petition a copy of the arbitration agreement purporting to bear the¿respondent's signature.”].) Alternatively, the moving party can meet its initial burden by setting forth the agreement’s provisions in the motion. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1330; see also Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 219.)

Here, Defendants met their initial burden because they attached a copy of the Motor Vehicle Order Agreement (the Order Agreement). (Declaration of Raymond Kim (Kim Decl.) ¶ 3, Exhibit 1.) Plaintiff “signed” the Order Agreement by clicking a “Place Order” button on Tesla’s website when he purchased the Subject Vehicle. (Kim Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff would not have been able to purchase the Subject Vehicle without doing so. (Ibid.) Plaintiff did not send an opt-out letter to Defendant within 30 days of purchasing the Subject Vehicle. (Kim Decl. ¶ 4.)

Accordingly, Defendant met its initial burden to establish that an agreement exists.

1. The Agreement Covers the Dispute at Issue:

Here, the Order Agreement applies to the instant dispute. First, the Order Agreement states it covers any dispute “arising out of or relating to any aspect of the relationship between you and Tesla.” [Kim Decl., Exhibit 1.] Plaintiff’s claim against Defendants concerns the Subject Vehicle which is clearly covered by the Order Agreement.

Therefore, the agreement applies to the subject dispute.

CONCLUSION:

For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

1. Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED;

2. Action is STAYED pending Arbitration.

OSC re: status of arbitration on April 16, 2025 at 8:30 a.m.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 2, 2023 __________________________________ Upinder S. Kalra

Judge of the Superior Court