ISRAEL ALEJANDRO SALAS CARPIZO VS SOUTHGATE AUTO, INC., ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 20STLC07174 Hearing Date: September 23, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION\r\nTO LIFT STAY

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff\r\nAlejandro Salas Carpizo

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO LIFT ARBITRATION STAY

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 1281.4.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Alejandro Salas Carpizo’s\r\nMotion to Lift Stay is GRANTED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE: \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nProof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nCorrect Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\n16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: None filed as of September\r\n21, 2021 [ ] Late [X]\r\nNone

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None filed as\r\nof September 21, 2021 [ ]\r\nLate [X] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On August 24, 2020, Plaintiff Israel Alejandro Salas\r\nCarpizo (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Southgate Auto, Inc.\r\ndba Express Auto Lending (“Southgate Auto”), Westlake Services, LLC dba\r\nWestlake Financial Services (“Westlake”), and Hudson Insurance Company\r\n(“Hudson”). Plaintiff dismissed Defendant Hudson with prejudice on November 18,\r\n2020.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On September 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel\r\narbitration. The Court granted the motion on February 9, 2021 as to Defendant\r\nWestlake only. (2/9/21 Minute Order.) The Court ordered the matter to be\r\narbitrated before the AAA and Westlake to reinstate its good standing status\r\nwith the AAA. (Id.) The Court also stayed the case in its entirety and\r\nset a post-arbitration conference for August 17, 2021. (Id.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Lift Stay (the\r\n“Motion”) on July 19, 2021. No opposition was filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal\r\nStandard & Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff seeks an\r\norder lifting the arbitration stay entered on February 9, 2021. (Mot., p. 3.) Plaintiff\r\npresents evidence that, after this Court granted his motion to compel Defendant\r\nWestlake into arbitration on February 9, Plaintiff’s attorney filed a Statement\r\nof Claims with the AAA on or around April 26, 2021. (Mot., Heydari Decl., ¶ 5.)\r\nThe AAA accepted arbitration over the case and on May 6, 2021 sent the parties\r\ncorrespondence requesting, in part, that Defendant Westlake submit its current\r\narbitration clause and that it pay the required arbitration fees by May 20,\r\n2021. (Id. at ¶ 6, Exh. 3.) Defendant Westlake did not pay the required\r\nfees by May 20. (Id. at ¶ 7.) The AAA sent the parties a second letter\r\non May 21 informing them that no payment had been received and requested a\r\npayment of $3,250.00 from Defendant Westlake by June 19, 2021. (Id. at ¶\r\n8, Exh. 4.) The AAA warned that failure to receive the requested payment by\r\nJune 19 would result in the closure of the arbitration file. (Id.) The\r\narbitration fees were not paid by June 19. (Id. at ¶ 9.) The AAA sent a\r\nfinal letter on June 25 advising that the matter had been administratively\r\nclosed for failure to cure the previously noted deficiencies. (Id. at ¶\r\n10, Exh. 5.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Code\r\nof Civil Procedure section 1281.4 provides, in pertinent part:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

“If a court of\r\ncompetent jurisdiction, whether in this State or not, has ordered arbitration\r\nof a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending\r\nbefore a court of this State, the court in which such action or proceeding is\r\npending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the\r\naction or proceeding until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order\r\nto arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.”\r\n(Emphasis added.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

“ ‘This vestigial\r\njurisdiction over the action at law consists solely of making the\r\ndetermination, upon conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, of whether there\r\nwas an award on the merits (in which case the action at law should be dismissed\r\nbecause of the res judicata effects of the arbitration award) [citations] or\r\nnot (at which point the action at law may resume to determine the rights of the\r\nparties). [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Cinel v. Christopher (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 759, 769.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

As\r\ndiscussed above, the AAA closed the parties’ file and declined to administer\r\nthe case. Thus, arbitration proceedings have concluded without a decision on\r\nthe merits. Accordingly, the Court may lift the stay and proceed with trial. (Id.)\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nConclusion\r\n& Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff\r\nAlejandro Salas Carpizo’s Motion to Lift Stay is GRANTED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to give\r\nnotice.

'

Case Number: 20STLC07174    Hearing Date: April 13, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Tue., April 13, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Carpizo v. Southgate Auto, Inc., et al. COMPL. FILED: 08-24-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC07174 DISC. C/O: 01-23-22

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, PETITION FOR COURT TO PICK ARBITRATION FORUM, REQUEST FOR STAY, AND REQUEST FOR COSTS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Israel Alejandro Salas Carpizo

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

(CCP § 1281.2, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s request for costs is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of April 9, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of April 9, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background &Discussion

On August 24, 2020, Plaintiff Israel Alejandro Salas Carpizo (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Southgate Auto, Inc. dba Express Auto Lending (“Southgate Auto”), Westlake Services, LLC dba Westlake Financial Services (“Westlake”), and Hudson Insurance Company (“Hudson”).

On September 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Arbitration, Petition for Court to Pick Arbitration Forum, Request for Stay, and Request for Costs (the “Motion”).

Plaintiff dismissed Defendant Hudson from the action with prejudice on November 18, 2020.

At the initial hearing on January 4, 2021, the Court continued the hearing because Defendant Southgate Auto had not yet been served. (1/4/21 Minute Order.) On January 15, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a supplemental declaration in support of the Motion explaining that Defendant Southgate’s business was closed and requesting that a ruling be issued as to Defendant Westlake. (1/15/21 Supp. Heydari Decl., ¶ 4.)

At the continued February 9, 2021 hearing, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to compel arbitration. (2/9/21 Minute Order.) However, Plaintiff’s request for costs was continued because Plaintiff’s counsel did not specify the amount of costs sought. (2/9/21 Minute Order.) Plaintiff’s counsel was ordered to file and serve a supplemental declaration with this information at least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing. (Id.) The Court warned that failure to obey the Court’s order could result in the request for costs being placed off calendar or denied. (Id.)

Plaintiff’s counsel filed a late supplemental declaration on April 8, 2021.

As an initial matter, the Court notes Plaintiff’s counsel filed and served the requested declaration only two court days before this hearing. More importantly, Plaintiff did not file a proof of service demonstrating it gave Defendants adequate notice of this hearing.

Given that an arbitration stay is in place, rather than continue the hearing once again, the request for costs is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Costs incurred may be sought after the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings if not awarded by an arbitrator.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s request for costs is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 20STLC07174    Hearing Date: February 09, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Tue., February 9, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Carpizo v. Southgate Auto, Inc., et al. COMPL. FILED: 08-24-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC07174 DISC. C/O: 01-23-22

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, PETITION FOR COURT TO PICK ARBITRATION FORUM, REQUEST FOR STAY, AND REQUEST FOR COSTS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Israel Alejandro Salas Carpizo

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

(CCP § 1281.2, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Israel Alejandro Salas Carpizo’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, Petition for Court to Pick Arbitration Forum, and Request for Stay is GRANTED as to Defendant Westlake Financial Services, LLC. The matter is STAYED and is to be arbitrated before the AAA. Defendant Westlake is also ordered to reinstate its good standing status with the AAA.

However, Plaintiff’s request for costs is CONTINUED TO APRIL 13, 2921 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel must file and serve a supplemental declaration regarding the costs sought. Failure to do so may result in the request for costs being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of February 5, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of February 5, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On August 24, 2020, Plaintiff Israel Alejandro Salas Carpizo (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Southgate Auto, Inc. dba Express Auto Lending (“Southgate Auto”), Westlake Services, LLC dba Westlake Financial Services (“Westlake”), and Hudson Insurance Company (“Hudson”).

Plaintiff dismissed Defendant Hudson from the action with prejudice on November 18, 2020.

At the initial hearing on January 4, 2021, the Court continued the hearing because Defendant Southgate Auto had not yet been served. (1/4/21 Minute Order.) On January 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration in support of its Motion.

To date, no opposition has been filed.

1. 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 to the agreement refuses to arbitrate that 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 rescission of the agreement.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 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 Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.)

1. Discussion

Plaintiff brings the instant Motion seeking to compel Defendants Southgate and Westlake to submit to arbitration based on the provisions of the parties’ Retail Installment Sale Contract (“RISC”). (Mot., pp. 1-2.) At the previous hearing, the Court noted Defendant Southgate had not yet been served and continued the hearing to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to do so. (1/4/21 Minute Order.) In Plaintiff’s counsel’s supplemental declaration, she states Defendant Southgate has not yet been served because the business has closed. (1/15/21 Supp. Heydari Decl., ¶4.) However, she requests that a ruling be issued as to Defendant Westlake. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Thus, the Court proceeds to make a ruling as to Defendant Westlake only.

Plaintiff purchased a vehicle from Defendant Southgate pursuant to the RISC, which was later assigned to Defendant Westlake. (Mot., p. 3:5-8.) The RISC contains an arbitration provision which states, in pertinent part:

“EITHER YOU OR WE MAY CHOOSE TO HAVE ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN YOU AND US DECIDED BY ARBITRATION, AND NOT BY A COURT OR BY JURY TRIAL…Any dispute, whether in contract, tort, statute or otherwise (including the interpretation and scope of this Arbitration Provision, and the arbitrability of the claim or dispute), between you and us, 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 court action…”

(Id., Heydari Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. 1.) The RISC also provides that parties may choose the American Arbitration Association (the “AAA”) or any other organization to conduct the arbitration subject to the holder’s approval. (Id.)

Plaintiff’s Complaint arises from the condition of the vehicle, so it is subject to arbitration. (See Compl., ¶¶ 17-21.) Plaintiff sent Defendant Westlake a letter demanding arbitration on January 29, 2020. (Mot., Heydari Decl., ¶ 2.) Plaintiff did not receive an agreement to arbitrate from Defendant Westlake. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Notably, Defendant Westlake has not submitted any opposition to this Motion. Based on the above, the Court finds Plaintiff demonstrated the existence of an arbitration agreement and that there is no defense to its enforcement.

Plaintiff’s counsel states that, on a separate matter, she was informed by AAA that Defendant Westlake has been kicked out of the program for failure to comply with AAA policies. (Mot., Heydari Decl., ¶ 9.) Defendant Westlake is ordered to comply with AAA’s policies so that this matter may be arbitrated by the AAA.

Plaintiff’s counsel also requests costs associated with filing this Motion. (Mot., p. 7:6-19.) “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.) However, Plaintiff’s Motion does not specify the amount of costs sought. Thus, Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to file and serve a supplemental declaration detailing the costs incurred in this filing this Motion.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Israel Alejandro Salas Carpizo’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, Petition for Court to Pick Arbitration Forum, and Request for Stay is GRANTED as to Defendant Westlake Financial Services, LLC. The matter is STAYED and is to be arbitrated before the AAA. Defendant Westlake is also ordered to reinstate its good standing status with the AAA.

However, Plaintiff’s request for costs is CONTINUED TO APRIL 13, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel must file and serve a supplemental declaration regarding the costs sought. Failure to do so may result in the request for costs being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 20STLC07174    Hearing Date: January 04, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Mon., January 4, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Carpizo v. Southgate Auto, Inc., et al. COMPL. FILED: 08-24-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC07174 DISC. C/O: 01-23-22

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, PETITION FOR COURT TO PICK ARBITRATION FORUM, REQUEST FOR STAY, AND REQUEST FOR COSTS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Israel Alejandro Salas Carpizo

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

(CCP § 1281.2, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Israel Alejandro Salas Carpizo’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, Petition for Court to Pick Arbitration Forum, Request for Stay, and Request for Costs is CONTINUED TO FEB 9, 2021 AT 11:00 A.M. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff must file supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE:

[ ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) NO

[ ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) NO

[ ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) NO

OPPOSITION: None filed as of December 30, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of December 30, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On August 24, 2020, Plaintiff Israel Alejandro Salas Carpizo (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Southgate Auto, Inc. dba Express Auto Lending (“Southgate Auto”), Westlake Services, LLC dba Westlake Financial Services (“Westlake”), and Hudson Insurance Company (“Hudson”).

Plaintiff dismissed Defendant Hudson from the action with prejudice on November 18, 2020.

To date, no opposition has been filed.

1. 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 to the agreement refuses to arbitrate that 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 rescission of the agreement.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 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 Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.)

1. Discussion

As an initial matter, the Court notes that because Defendant Southgate Auto has not yet been served with this action or with the instant Motion, the Court has no jurisdiction over it. In addition, the proof of service as to Defendant Westlake demonstrates the Summons, Complaint, and instant Motion were served on September 30, 2020 by substitute service but does not identify the name of the person served on behalf of the corporation. Before the Court can issue a ruling on the merits, Plaintiff must address the service issues noted above.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Israel Alejandro Salas Carpizo’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, Petition for Court to Pick Arbitration Forum, Request for Stay, and Request for Costs is CONTINUED TO FEB 9, 2021 AT 11:00 A.M. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff must file supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.