Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 25STCV02409, Date: 2025-05-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25STCV02409    Hearing Date: May 14, 2025    Dept: 45

CYNTHIA ORDUNA vs CCC AUTO, LLC, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Date of Hearing:        May 14, 2025                         Trial Date:       None set

Department:              45                                            Case No.:        25STCV02409

Moving Party:            Defendant CCC Auto, LLC dba Culver City Chevrolet

Responding Party:     No opposition

BACKGROUND

On January 28, 2025, Plaintiff Cynthia Orduna filed a complaint against Defendants CC Auto, LLC dba Culver City Chevrolet (“Dealership”) and Merchants Bonding Company for (1) Violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (2) Negligent Misrepresentation; (3) Breach of Warranty of Title; (4) Conversion; (5) Breach of Contract; and (6) Violation of Vehicle Code § 11711, et seq. Plaintiff purchased a 2021 Porsche Macan from the Dealership on October 18, 2024. Plaintiff paid the Dealership $40,383.32 in cash for the Subject Vehicle. Plaintiff alleges the contract required Dealership to submit the proper transfer of ownership documentation to the California Department of Motor Vehicles and provide Plaintiff with title to the Subject Vehicle. However, Dealership did not register the Subject Vehicle in Plaintiff’s name prior to her temporary registration expiring or within the time period provided by the California Vehicle Code. Plaintiff further alleges Dealership did not have title to the Subject Vehicle at the time of sale and could not transfer title to the Subject Vehicle or register the Subject Vehicle in Plaintiff’s name as contracted.

[Tentative] Ruling

Defendant CCC Auto LLC dba Culver City Chevrolet’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED

DISCUSSION

Defendant CCC Auto, LLC dba Culver City Chevrolet (“CCC”) moves this court for an order to compel Plaintiff Cynthia Orduna to arbitrate this action before the American Arbitration Association and to stay this action until the hearing on the instant motion and the arbitration proceeding are resolved. CCC also requests an order form the court for $444.95 in costs incurred in appearing in this action because such costs were unnecessarily incurred.

Parties may be compelled to arbitrate a dispute upon the court finding that: (1) there was a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties; and (2) said agreement covers the controversy or controversies in the parties’ dispute.¿ (CCP § 1281.2; Omar v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2004)¿118 Cal.App.4th 955, 961.) Because the right to arbitration depends upon contract, the party seeking arbitration bears the initial burden of proving that the parties actually agreed to arbitrate the instant dispute.  (Hotels Nevada v. L.A. Pacific Center, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 754, 761.)  If the moving party does so, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show that the subject agreement is unenforceable.  (Id. at 761.)  The 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.”  (Engalla v. Permanente Med. Grp., Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 972.)¿¿ 

The court finds Defendant CCC has established the existence of an arbitration agreement between Plaintiff and CCC. On October 18, 2024, Plaintiff and CCC entered into a Retail Installment Sales Contract (“RISC”) for the purchase of a used 2021 Porsche Macan. The RISC includes an arbitration clause, which provides, in pertinent part:

Any 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 … be resolved by neutral, binding arbitration and not by a court action.

(Santillan Decl. ¶2, Exh. 1.)

This provision indicates that disputes arising from Plaintiff’s purchase or condition of the Vehicle are covered by the RISC’s arbitration provision. Additionally, the RISC was signed by CCC and Plaintiff. Accordingly, the court finds Defendant has met their initial burden of showing that an arbitration agreement exists with Plaintiff.

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

Based on the foregoing, the motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.

Arbitration with AAA

Defendant requests this court to order this action to binding arbitration with AAA. The RISC provides Plaintiff may choose AAA or National Arbitration and Mediation as the arbitration organization to conduct the arbitration. Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6 provides “[i]f the arbitration agreement provides a method of appointing an arbitrator, that method shall be followed.” Because the Arbitration Provision does not mandate arbitration with the AAA, the court will not order the arbitration be before AAA at this point.  It will be up to plaintiff to select which arbitration service to use.  If no arbitrator is selected within 45 days of this order, the court will order the matter to binding arbitration with AAA.

Stay of Proceedings

Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4 provides that if the court has ordered the arbitration of a controversy, it “shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.”  Pursuant to Section 1281.4, therefore, the court stays this action pending conclusion of the arbitration proceedings.