Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV26674, Date: 2025-05-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV26674 Hearing Date: May 7, 2025 Dept: 45
BENJAMIN CHUNG
vs HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., et al.
MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
Date of Hearing: May
7, 2025 Trial Date: None set
Department: 45 Case No.: 24STCV26674
Moving Party: Defendants
Genesis Motor America, LLC and GENSM, LLC
Responding Party: No
opposition.
BACKGROUND
On October 11, 2024, Plaintiff Benjamin Chung filed a
complaint against Hyundai Motor America, Inc. and GENSM, LLC for various
violations of the Song-Beverly Act and breach of the express and implied
warranty. On November 15, 2024, Plaintiff named Genesis Motor America, LLC as
Doe 1. On December 4, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed Hyundai Motor America, Inc.
[Tentative] Ruling
Defendant GMA’s Motion to compel arbitration and stay the matter
pending arbitration is GRANTED.
Defendant Genesis Santa Monica’s Motion to compel arbitration and
stay the matter pending arbitration is GRANTED.
DISCUSSION
Defendants Genesis Motor America, LLC (“GMA”) and GENSM, LLC d/b/a
Genesis Santa Monica (“Genesis Santa Monica”) move this court for an order
compelling arbitration and staying this action pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 1281. Defendants make the motion on the grounds on the
Arbitration Provisions included in the warranty, sales contract, and CSA for
the 2022 Genesis GV70 agreed to and signed by Plaintiff Benjamin Chung and
Defendants.
“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.” (CCP § 1281.2(a),
(b).)
A proceeding to compel arbitration is in essence a suit in equity
to compel specific performance of a contract. (Freeman v. State Farm Mutual
Auto Insurance Co. (1975) 14 Cal.3d 473, 479.) Such enforcement may be
sought by a party to the arbitration agreement. (CCP § 1280(e)(1).)
A motion to compel arbitration requires the facts to be proven by
affidavit or declaration and documentary evidence with oral testimony taken
only in the court’s discretion. (CCP §1290.2; Rosenthal v. Great Western
Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413–414.) The motion must set
forth the provisions of the written agreement and the arbitration clause
verbatim, or such provisions must be attached and incorporated by reference. (CRC,
rule 3.1330; see Condee v. Longwood Mgmt. Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th
215, 218.)
Once the moving party alleges that an arbitration agreement
exists, the burden shifts to the responding party to prove the falsity of the
purported agreement, and no evidence or authentication is required to find the
arbitration agreement exists. (See Condee, supra, 88
Cal.App.4th at p. 219.) However, if the existence of the agreement is
challenged, “[movant] bears the burden of proving [the arbitration agreement’s]
existence by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Rosenthal, supra,
p. 413; see also Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016)
246 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1058–1060.)
I.
GMA
GMA argues they are entitled to arbitrate the claims Plaintiff
brought against GMA pursuant to the arbitration agreement in the Owner’s
Handbook & Warranty Information (“Warranty”) and the Connected Services
Agreement (“CSA”). The Arbitration Agreements state, in pertinent part:
If you purchased or leased your
Genesis vehicle in the State of California, you and we, Genesis Motor America,
each agree that any claim or disputes between us (including between you and any
of our affiliated companies) related to or arising out of your vehicle
purchase, advertising for the vehicle, use of your vehicle, the performance of
the vehicle, any service relating to the vehicle, the vehicle warranty,
representations in the warranty, or the duties contemplated under the warranty…
shall be resolved by binding arbitration at either your or our election, even
if the claim is initially filed in a court of law. (Blackburn Decl. Exh. C.)
The agreement to arbitrate
otherwise includes, but is not limited to: claims based in contract, tort,
warranty, statute, fraud, misrepresentation or any other legal theory; claims
that arose before this or any prior Agreement (including, but not limited to,
claims relating to advertising) […] (Rao Decl., Exh 2.)
GMA maintains this entire dispute is based upon transactions
covered by the Arbitration Agreements in GMA’s warranty and CSA.
The court finds the CSA Arbitration Agreement does not apply. According to GMA, Genesis Connected Services
refers to a connected car system that includes various functions and features.
(Rao Decl. ¶5.) Upon review of the CSA, it is clear that the agreement revolves
around the Bluelink services and the complaint fails to mention any Bluelink
system.
As for GMA’s warranty, the court finds the arbitration provision
applies. Plaintiff does rely on the warranty in their complaint. Specifically,
the complaint alleges Plaintiff received an express written warranty, which
Plaintiff alleges Defendant breached. Accordingly, as noted by GMA, it would be
manifestly unjust to allow Plaintiff to rely on the Warranty as a basis for
this action, but then avoid the binding arbitration provision in the Warranty. (See
Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486, 496 holding “a
party is not entitled to make use of [a contract containing an arbitration
clause] as long as it worked to [his or] her advantage, then attempt to avoid
its application in defining the forum in which [his or] her dispute… should be
resolved.”)
Accordingly, GMA has met its initial burden of showing that an
arbitration agreement exists with Plaintiff. Per the Warranty, Plaintiffs were
expressly provided an opt-out option for the arbitration provision. (Sanchez
v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 899, 914.) Plaintiff
has not filed any opposition to the Motion to Compel Arbitration.
Based on the foregoing, Defendant GMA’s Motion to compel
arbitration and stay the matter pending arbitration is GRANTED.
II.
Genesis Santa Monica
Genesis Santa Monica argues they are entitled to arbitrate the
claims Plaintiff brought against GMA pursuant to the arbitration agreement in
Sales Contract. The provision provides in pertinent part:
[a]ny claim or dispute, whether in
contract, tort, statute or otherwise…between you and us or our employees,
agents, successors or assigns, which arises out of or relates to your credit
application, purchase or condition of this vehicle, this contract or any
resulting transaction or relationship…shall, at your or our election, be
resolved by neutral, binding arbitration and not by a court action. (Azemoon
Decl. Exh A.)
The court finds the Sales Contract applies. Plaintiff’s claims for
the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act against Genesis Santa Monica arises from
her purchase and the condition of the Vehicle. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion.
Based on the foregoing, Defendant Genesis Santa Monica’s Motion to
compel arbitration and stay the matter pending arbitration is GRANTED.