MARTIN COVARRUBIAS, ET AL. VS WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC06968    Hearing Date: June 24, 2020    Dept: 26

Based on current conditions, including, but not limited to, the spread of Covid-19, the need for social distancing, and the states of emergency having been declared by Governor Gavin Newsom and President Donald Trump, the General Orders issued by the Presiding Judge and Statewide Orders issued by the Chief Justice, no more than six people may be in the courtroom at any given time, in addition to court staff.  Due to overcrowding concerns via COVID-19, the parties shall make every effort to appear telephonically via CourtCall for their scheduled hearing.

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS

(CCP §§ 1281.2, et seq., 638)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs Martin Covarrubias and Narda G. Velazquez’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 THEREIN. DEFENDANT WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC DBA WESTLAKE FINANCIAL SERVICES IS ALSO ORDERED TO PAY PLAINTIFFS’ COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $439.95 WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On July 29, 2019, Plaintiffs Martin Covarrubias and Narda G. Velazquez (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Westlake Services, LLC dba Westlake Financial Services (“Holder”) and Great American Insurance Company (“Great American”). On October 23, 2019, Plaintiffs dismissed Great American from the action.

Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Compel Arbitration on January 13, 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

Plaintiffs bring the instant Motion seeking to compel Holder to submit to arbitration based on a Retail Installment Sale Contract to purchase a car (the “Contract”). (Motion, Heydari Decl., Exh. 2.) Both Plaintiffs and the car dealership are parties to the Contract, and Holder is alleged to have been assigned the contract. (See Compl., ¶¶36-37.) Plaintiffs provide evidence of the existence of the arbitration agreement in the sales contract. (Motion, Heydari Decl., Exh. 2, p. 4.) They further demonstrate that they made payments to Holder on the Contract and that their demand to Holder to arbitrate the dispute was ignored. (Id. at ¶¶4-9 and Exhs. 1, 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, Plaintiffs have demonstrated the existence of an arbitration agreement and the Court finds there is no defense to its enforcement.

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, pp. 7:20-22.)

Conclusion

Plaintiffs Covarrubias and Narda G. Velazquez’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 THEREIN. DEFENDANT WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC DBA WESTLAKE FINANCIAL SERVICES IS ALSO ORDERED TO PAY PLAINTIFFS’ COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $439.95 WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.