MARY J SUSMILCH VS PLANET CARS, INC., ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC01077 Hearing Date: August 30, 2021 Dept: 26

Susmilch v. Planet Cars, Inc., et al 20STLC01077

MOTION TO LIFT\r\nSTAY AND REOPEN CASE

(9 U.S.C. § 3)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Mary J. Susmilch’s Motion to Lift Stay and Reopen\r\nCase is GRANTED.

TRIAL IS SET FOR February 2, 2022 AT 8:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT\r\n26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

ANALYSIS:

On February 3, 2020, Plaintiff Mary J. Susmilch\r\n(“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Planet\r\nCars, Inc. dba Cash or Finance Auto (“Dealer”), Westlake Services, LLC dba\r\nWestlake Financial Services (“Holder”) and International Fidelity Insurance\r\nCompany (“International Fidelity” or “Surety”). On September 3, 2020, the Court\r\ngranted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Request for Stay. The\r\nCourt ordered Dealer and Holder to pay the necessary fees to reinstate the\r\nmatter to arbitration and set a Post-Arbitration Status Conference. (Minute Order, 09/03/20, p. 2.)

On February 11,\r\n2021, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Lift Stay and Reopen Case. The\r\nMotion initially came for hearing on June 19, 2021, at which time Plaintiff did\r\nnot appear, but Defendant did and made oral argument. (Minute Order, 07/19/21.)\r\nThe Court continued the hearing to August 30, 2021.

To date, no\r\nadditional papers or opposition has been filed.

Discussion

Arbitration under\r\nthe parties’ agreement is to be conducted pursuant to the Federal Arbitration\r\nAct, set forth at 9 U.S.C. section 1, et. seq. (Motion, Heydari Decl., Exh. 1,\r\np. 4.) Under section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act, an action referring the\r\nparties to arbitration may be stayed so long as no party is in default. (9\r\nU.S.C., § 3.) However, Dealer and Holder are now in default with respect to the\r\narbitration proceedings. Despite the Court’s September 3, 2020 order that\r\nDealer and Holder pay the necessary fees to reinstate the arbitration with the\r\nAmerican Arbitration Association (“the AAA”), they have yet to do so. (Motion,\r\nHeydari Decl., ¶¶3-8 and Exhs. 2-3.) On January 29, 2021, the AAA sent notice\r\nthat it was closing the case due to non-payment of fees. (Id. at ¶9 and\r\nExh. 4.)

Based on Dealer and\r\nHolder’s default with respect to the arbitration proceeding, the Court finds it\r\nappropriate to reinstate this action and allow it to proceed to trial.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Mary J. Susmilch’s Motion to Lift Stay and Reopen\r\nCase is GRANTED.

TRIAL IS SET FOR February 2, 2022 AT 8:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT\r\n26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 20STLC01077    Hearing Date: September 03, 2020    Dept: 26

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS

(CCP §§ 1281.2, et seq., 638)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Mary J. Susmilch’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. THE MATTER IS TO BE ARBITRATED BEFORE THE AAA AND RESPONDENTS PLANET CARS, INC. DBA CASH OR FINANCE AUTO AND WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC DBA WESTLAKE FINANCIAL SERVICES ARE TO PAY ANY OUTSTANDING FEES TO AAA TO REINSTATE THIS CASE.

ANALYSIS:

On February 3, 2020, Plaintiff Mary J. Susmilch (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Planet Cars, Inc. dba Cash or Finance Auto (“Dealer”), Westlake Services, LLC dba Westlake Financial Services (“Holder”) (collectively, “Respondents”) and International Fidelity Insurance Company (“International Fidelity”). On February 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Arbitration. Respondents filed a limited opposition on August 21, 2020.

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 Respondents 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 Dealer are parties to the Contract, and Holder is alleged to have been assigned the contract. (See Compl., ¶¶37-38.) Plaintiff provides evidence of the existence of the arbitration agreement in the sales contract. (Motion, Heydari Decl., Exh. 1, p. 4.) Plaintiff further demonstrates that she 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. Accordingly, Plaintiff has demonstrated the existence of an arbitration agreement and the Court finds there is no defense to its enforcement.

In its limited opposition, Respondents agree to arbitration before AAA and to pay the fees necessary to reinstate arbitration before AAA. Respondents only oppose the request for costs in the Motion to Compel Arbitration. The Court finds there is no proper request for costs in the Motion. No amount of costs is specified or demonstrated by competent evidence. (Motion, p. 7:21-28; Heyari Decl.) Therefore, the request for costs is denied.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Mary J. Susmilch’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. THE MATTER IS TO BE ARBITRATED BEFORE THE AAA AND RESPONDENTS PLANET CARS, INC. DBA CASH OR FINANCE AUTO AND WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC DBA WESTLAKE FINANCIAL SERVICES ARE TO PAY ANY OUTSTANDING FEES TO AAA TO REINSTATE THIS CASE.Moving party to give notice.