Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV00391, Date: 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00391    Hearing Date: February 10, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On June 22, 2022, plaintiffs Ruth Ybarra and Aariana Ybarra (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendant Nissan North America, Inc. (“Defendant”).  Trial date is not yet set.  Defendant seeks an order compelling arbitration of Plaintiff’s complaint and staying any further proceedings during the pendency of that arbitration.  The motion is opposed.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

In a motion to compel arbitration, the moving party must prove by a preponderance of evidence the existence of the arbitration agreement and that the dispute is covered by the agreement.  The burden then shifts to the resisting party to prove by a preponderance of evidence a ground for denial (e.g., fraud, unconscionability, etc.).  (Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413-414; Hotels Nevada v. L.A. Pacific Center, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 754, 758.)  

Generally, on a petition to compel arbitration, the court must grant the petition unless it finds either (1) no written agreement to arbitrate exists; (2) the right to compel arbitration has been waived; (3) grounds exist for revocation of the agreement; or (4) litigation is pending that may render the arbitration unnecessary or create conflicting rulings on common issues.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218-219.)  

“California has a strong public policy in favor of arbitration and any doubts regarding the arbitrability of a dispute are resolved in favor of arbitration.”  (Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital v. Blue Cross of California (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 677, 686.)  “This strong policy has resulted in the general rule that arbitration should be upheld unless it can be said with assurance that an arbitration clause is not susceptible to an interpretation covering the asserted dispute.”  (Ibid. [internal quotations omitted].) This is in accord with the liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), which governs all agreements to arbitrate in contracts “involving interstate commerce.”  (9 U.S.C. § 2, et seq.; Higgins v. Superior Court (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1247.)  

III.        EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

The Court SUSTAINS Plaintiffs’ objections to Paragraphs 1, 4, 5, and 6-8 of the Declaration of Michael Yu, outside counsel for Defendant, on lack of personal knowledge and foundation grounds.

IV.         REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for judicial notice in full.

V.           DISCUSSION

Because of the Court has sustained Plaintiff’s objection to the Declaration of Michael Yu, the moving party is unable to prove by a preponderance of admissible evidence the existence of the arbitration agreement, or, therefore, that the dispute is covered by that agreement.

VI.         CONCLUSION

The Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action filed by Nissan North America, Inc., a California Corporation on 12/13/2022 is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at alhdept3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.