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

Tentative Rulings

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.