This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/11/2020 at 04:08:54 (UTC).

AMALIA GARCIA-OCAMPO, ET AL. VS WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 08/16/2019 AMALIA GARCIA-OCAMPO filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******7663

  • Filing Date:

    08/16/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

GARCIA-OCAMPO AMALIA

RAMIREZ-MARTINEZ JOSE A

Defendants

GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

WESTLAKE SERVICES LLC DBA WESTLAKE FINANCIAL SERVICES

HUDSON INSURANCE COMPANY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

SADR KASRA

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration)

9/9/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration)

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

3/24/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

2/5/2020: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

1/30/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

12/5/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) - Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

11/18/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) - Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

10/22/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

10/28/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

10/30/2019: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration)

11/5/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration)

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of Nima Heydari in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Arbitration

9/6/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of Nima Heydari in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Arbitration

Motion to Compel Arbitration - Motion to Compel Arbitration

9/6/2019: Motion to Compel Arbitration - Motion to Compel Arbitration

Affidavit (name extension) - Affidavit Re Venue

8/23/2019: Affidavit (name extension) - Affidavit Re Venue

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

8/16/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

8/16/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint - Complaint

8/16/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

8/16/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Summons - Summons on Complaint

8/16/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

7 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/09/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion to Compel Arbitration: Filed By: Amalia Garcia-Ocampo (Plaintiff),Jose A Ramirez-Martinez (Plaintiff); Result: Granted; Result Date: 09/09/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2020
  • DocketThe case is placed in special status of: Stay - Binding Arbitration

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration scheduled for 09/09/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 09/09/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 02/16/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 02/16/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 08/19/2022 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 08/19/2022

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2020
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration scheduled for 04/15/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion was rescheduled to 09/09/2020 10:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2020
  • DocketAddress for Kasra Sadr (Attorney) updated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by: Amalia Garcia-Ocampo (Plaintiff); Jose A Ramirez-Martinez (Plaintiff); As to: Hudson Insurance Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
16 More Docket Entries
  • 09/06/2019
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration scheduled for 11/05/2019 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2019
  • DocketAffidavit Re Venue; Filed by: Amalia Garcia-Ocampo (Plaintiff); Jose A Ramirez-Martinez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/19/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 08/19/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/19/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 02/16/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/19/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Amalia Garcia-Ocampo (Plaintiff); Jose A Ramirez-Martinez (Plaintiff); As to: Westlake Services, LLC (Defendant); Great American Insurance Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Amalia Garcia-Ocampo (Plaintiff); Jose A Ramirez-Martinez (Plaintiff); As to: Westlake Services, LLC (Defendant); Great American Insurance Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Amalia Garcia-Ocampo (Plaintiff); Jose A Ramirez-Martinez (Plaintiff); As to: Westlake Services, LLC (Defendant); Great American Insurance Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC07663    Hearing Date: September 09, 2020    Dept: 26

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS

(CCP §§ 1281.2, et seq., 638)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs Amalia Garcia-Ocampo and Jose A. Ramirez Martinez’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. THE MATTER IS TO BE ARBITRATED BEFORE THE AAA AND DEFENDANT WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC DBA WESTLAKE FINANCIAL SERVICES IS TO PAY ANY OUTSTANDING FEES TO AAA TO REINSTATE THIS CASE.

ANALYSIS:

On August 16, 2019, Plaintiffs Amalia Garcia-Ocampo and Jose A. Ramirez-Martinez (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action for violation of consumer rights and for unfair business practices against Defendants Westlake Services, LLC dba Westlake Financial Services (“Westlake”) and Great American Insurance Company (“GAIC”) (collectively, “Defendants”). This action arises from a dispute over Plaintiffs’ purchase of a used vehicle, namely a 2013 Nissan Sentra. (Compl., ¶16.) According to Plaintiffs, Westlake is the holder of the purchase contract, and GAIC is the surety of the purchase contract. (Id. at ¶¶6, 8.)

On February 7, 2019, Plaintiffs initiated arbitration against Westlake under the purchase contract with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”). (Motion, Heydari Decl. ¶ 8.) Due to Westlake’s failure to pay the arbitration fee, AAA declines to administer the arbitration. (Id. at ¶¶10-11 and Exhs. 5-6.) As a result, Plaintiffs brought the instant Motion to Compel Westlake to Submit to Arbitration (the “Motion”) on September 6, 2019.

The Motion initially came for hearing on November 5, 2019 at which time the Court continued the matter for further briefing. Plaintiffs filed supplemental papers on November 18, 2019. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

“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).) As with other types of agreements, “[t]he failure of the [party] to carefully read the agreement and the amendment is not a reason to refuse to enforce the arbitration provisions.” (Powers v. Dickson, Carlson & Campillo (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1115.) “California law, ‘like [federal law], reflects a strong policy favoring arbitration agreements and requires close judicial scrutiny of waiver claims.’” (Wagner Const. Co. v. Pacific Mechanical Corp. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 19, 31.) If the court orders arbitration, then the court shall stay the action until arbitration is completed. (See CCP § 1281.4.)

Discussion

Plaintiffs bring the instant Motion seeking to compel Westlake to submit to arbitration based on a Retail Installment Sale Contract to purchase a car (the “Contract”). (Motion, Heydari Decl., Exh. 1.) Westlake is alleged to have been assigned the contract between Plaintiffs and the car dealership. (Compl., ¶37; Motion, Garcia-Martinez Decl., ¶6.) Plaintiffs provides evidence of the existence of the arbitration agreement in the sales contract. (Motion, Heydari Decl., Exh. 2, p. 4.) Plaintiffs further demonstrate that they made payments to Westlake on the Contract and that their demand to arbitrate the dispute was ignored. (Id. at ¶¶3-7 and Exhs. 1, 4.) This demonstrates that the Court’s intervention is needed to compel the parties to arbitration.

Plaintiffs also request costs for having to bring the instant Motion. “The court shall award costs upon any judicial proceeding under this title as provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1021) of Title 14 of Part 2 of this code.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1293.2.) “A petition to compel arbitration under section 1281.2 is a judicial proceeding covered by this provision.” (Otay River Constructors v. San Diego Expressway (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 796, 805.) Therefore, Plaintiffs are awarded costs of $439.95. (Motion, p. 8:4-5.)

Conclusion

Plaintiffs Amalia Garcia-Ocampo and Jose A. Ramirez Martinez’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. THE MATTER IS TO BE ARBITRATED BEFORE THE AAA AND DEFENDANT WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC DBA WESTLAKE FINANCIAL SERVICES IS TO PAY ANY OUTSTANDING FEES TO AAA TO REINSTATE THIS CASE.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC07663    Hearing Date: November 05, 2019    Dept: 94

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

(CCP § 1281.2)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs Amalia Garcia Ocampo and Jose A. Ramirez-Martinez’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is CONTINUED to FEB. 11, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 94.

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On August 16, 2019, Plaintiffs Amalia Garcia Ocampo and Jose A. Ramirez-Martinez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action for violation of consumer rights and for unfair business practices against Defendants Westlake Services, LLC dba Westlake Financial Services (“Westlake”) and Great American Insurance Company (“GAIC”) (collectively, “Defendants”). This action arises from a dispute over Plaintiffs’ purchase of a used vehicle, namely a 2013 Nissan Sentra. (Compl. ¶ 16.) According to Plaintiffs, Westlake is the holder of the purchase contract, and GAIC is the surety of the purchase contract. (Id. ¶¶ 6, 8.)

On February 7, 2019, Plaintiffs initiated arbitration against Westlake under the purchase contract with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”). (Motion, Heydari Decl. ¶ 8.) Because Westlake has not paid for the arbitration fee, the arbitration has not begun. (Id., Heydari Decl. ¶ 10, citing to Exh. 5.) As a consequence, Plaintiffs brought the instant Motion to Compel Westlake to Submit to Arbitration (the “Motion”) on September 6, 2019.

II. Legal Standard

Under the California Arbitration Act (“AAA”), “[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 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).) “The CAA is ‘a comprehensive statutory scheme regulating private arbitration in this state.’ [Citation.] ‘Through this detailed statutory scheme, the Legislature has expressed a ‘strong public policy in favor of arbitration as a speedy and relatively inexpensive means of dispute resolution.’’ [Citation.]” (Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. (2018) 6 Cal.5th 59, 72.)

III. Discussion

“‘[T]he party seeking arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence, and the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any defense . . . .’ [Citation.]” (Nielsen Contracting, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters, Inc. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1096, 1106.)

The Arbitration Agreement submitted by Plaintiffs does not show that Westlake is a party to the contract. (Motion, Heydari Decl., Exh. 2.) Rather, the Arbitration Agreement shows that Galaxy Auto Mall is the creditor. (Id., Heydari Decl., Exh. 2.) Plaintiffs fail to explain this discrepancy. The Court therefore cannot compel Westlake to submit to arbitration at this time.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is CONTINUED to FEB. 11 2020, at 10:30 a.m. in Department 94. Plaintiffs are ordered to file supplemental brief and evidence, if necessary, to demonstrate how Westlake is bound by the contract.

Moving parties are ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCdept94@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.