Case Name: Torres v. Ron Du Pratt Ford, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 1-14-CV-264319

Defendant Ron DuPratt Ford Inc. moves for an order compelling Plaintiff Miguel Torres to arbitrate his individual claims arising from the purchase of a 2008 Dodge Dakota, pursuant to the arbitration clause contained in the written purchase agreement.  Plaintiff concedes that the action should be stayed except for the issue of injunctive relief, which he argues is severable because it is not arbitrable.  Plaintiff alternatively asks for the injunctive relief portion of the action to be continued to the conclusion of this action upon either side’s petition to confirm the award.

Defendant requests judicial notice of Plaintiff’s Complaint, which has been filed with the court. (Evid. Code, § 452(d).)  The request is granted.

Claims for public-benefit injunctive relief are not arbitrable and therefore must be decided in court.  (Cruz v. PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 303, 314-315; Broughton v. Cigna Healthplans of California (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1066, 1079-1082.)  If injunctive relief is beyond the scope of what an arbitrator may order, the court is the right place to obtain it.  (Ferguson v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (9th Cir. 2013) 733 F.3d 928, 937.)  Ferguson expressly holds “that the FAA preempts the Broughton-Cruz rule.”  (Ibid.)  An arbitrator may not have authority to enter injunctive relief if the arbitration agreement does not permit it, but that is a question for the arbitrator to determine. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff argues that he is seeking a public-benefit injunction, and that public benefit injunctions are not arbitrable.  Plaintiff relies on the Broughton-Cruz rule to support his opinion and state that the Broughton-Cruz rule was not expressly overruled in Ferguson.

Plaintiff’s interpretation of Ferguson that it did not expressly overrule the Broughton–Cruz rule, is not persuasive.  Therefore, the Broughton-Cruz rule does not apply to this case, and the motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.