18-CIV-01183 ELIZABETH INIGUEZ VS. WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC, ET AL.

ELIZABETH INIGUEZ WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC
TODD M. FRIEDMAN STEVEN R. BERARDINO

PETITION OF DEFENDANT WESTLAKE SERVICES LLC FOR THE FOLLOWING ORDERS: (1) COMPELLING BINDING CONTRACTUAL ARBITRATION; (2) COMPELLING ARBITRATION OCCUR BEFORE THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION AND (3) STAYING ACTION TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Westlake Services, LLC’s (Westlake) Petition to Compel Binding Contractual Arbitration before the America Arbitration Association (AAA), and to Stay the case pending the conclusion of the arbitration, is GRANTED-IN-PART, as set forth below. Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2 et. seq.

The motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. Both the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1 et. seq.) and California law favor the enforceability of arbitration agreements. See California Arbitration Act (“CAA”), codified by Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 1281, et seq.; Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 83, 97 (2000). Plaintiff argues Defendant Westlake was not a party to the Retail Installment Sale Contract (RISC) and therefore cannot enforce it. This argument lacks merit. By the arbitration clause’s express terms, the parties agreed that it applies not only to Enterprise Car Sales, but to Enterprise’s “assigns,” including “third parties who do not sign this contract.” See also 8-22-18 Schwartz Decl., Ex. A (showing that Enterprise assigned the contract to Westlake immediately following Plaintiff’s purchase of the car) (“Any claim or dispute … between you and us or our … assigns …including any such relationship with third parties who do not sign this contract shall … be resolved by neutral, binding arbitration…”). Accordingly, Westlake has standing to enforce the arbitration clause.

While the parties dispute whether the asserted claims here fall within the scope of the arbitration provision, the Court need not address/resolve that issue because the parties expressly delegated the determination of that issue to the arbitrator. Schwartz Decl., Ex. A (“Any claim or dispute … including the … scope of this Arbitration Provision … shall … be resolved by binding arbitration”). Similarly, although Defendant’s Reply brief argues that the contract and its arbitration clause are not unconscionable, Plaintiff has not raised this defense, and thus the Court need not address it.

As the moving party has requested, Plaintiff’s claim(s) for injunctive relief, which are not part of this motion, are hereby STAYED pending the outcome of the arbitration. Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.4.

Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration before the American Arbitration Association (AAA) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The contract identifies AAA as one option for an arbitrator. Schwartz Decl., Ex. A (“You may choose the American Arbitration Association … or any other organization to conduct the arbitration subject to our approval.”). The parties shall meet and confer in good faith to decide on an arbitrator, as set forth in the agreement. The Court retains the right to impose sanctions against either party found to be acting in bad faith with respect to the meet and confer to decide on a neutral arbitrator.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties.