JANNEH SHEIKUBAH VS WHOLESALE INVESTMENTS, INC., ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC05220    Hearing Date: January 11, 2021    Dept: 26

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS

(CCP §§ 1281.2, et seq., 638)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Janneh Sheikubah’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. THE MATTER IS TO BE ARBITRATED BEFORE THE AAA AND DEFENDANT WHOLESALE INVESTMENTS, INC. IS TO PAY ANY OUTSTANDING FEES TO AAA TO REINSTATE THIS CASE THEREIN.

ANALYSIS:

On June 20, 2020, Plaintiff Janneh Sheikubah (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Wholesale Investments, Inc. (“Dealer”), Mechanics Bank Successor By Merger With California Republic Bank (“Holder”) and The Guarantee Company Of North America USA. Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Compel Arbitration on July 8, 2020. 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

Plaintiff brings the instant Motion seeking to compel Holder and Dealer to submit to arbitration based on a Retail Installment Sale Contract to purchase a car (the “Contract”). (Motion, Heydari Decl., Exh. 1.) Both Plaintiff and the Dealer are parties to the Contract, and Holder is alleged to have been assigned the contract. (See Compl., ¶¶38-39.) Plaintiff provides evidence of the existence of the arbitration agreement in the sales contract. (Motion, Heydari Decl., Exh. 1, “Arbitration Provision”.) Plaintiff made payments to Holder on the Contract and that the demand to Holder to arbitrate the dispute was ignored. (Id. at ¶¶4-9 and Exhs. 2, 4.) This demonstrates that the Court’s intervention is needed to compel the parties to arbitration. Nor has Holder submitted an opposition to the instant Motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff have demonstrated the existence of an arbitration agreement and the Court finds there is no defense to its enforcement.

Plaintiff also requests 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.) However, as no proof is submitted regarding the costs incurred by Plaintiff, the Court cannot award any costs at this time.

Conclusion

Moving party to give notice.