Motion,Ex Parte: Nunez et al -v - Nissan North America, INC et al Print

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                IRp ’ L
                                                                                                         6‘sz
                                                                                                          Co
                                                                                                                                  ‘
                                                                                                                  ‘Fx
                                                                                                                    N4       Iv         a4
                                                                                                                         Row?          Ema 2%?qu
                                                                                                                                         Tp/C r O
                               SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA                                        APR J
                                                                                                                         C
                                                                                                                             2023
                                              COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
     BLANCA NUNEZ, ET, AL”                                              Case N0.: CIVSB2213 186


                         Plaintiffs,


     VS-
                                                                        RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
                                                                        COMPEL ARBITRATION
     NISSAN NORTH AMREICA, INC, BT.AL,

                         Defendants

10
              The motion       to   compel    arbitration   and stay proceedings by defendant Nissan came 0n
11
     regularly for hearing         on April   13,   2023 with Judge David Driscoll presiding. Moving and
12
     opposing papers were considered by the court as well as oral arguments by counsel. The matter
13

     was take under submission.
14


15           This   is   a lemon law litigation.        On June      23, 2022, Plaintiffs Blanca       Nunez    (fl(a Blanca

16
     Sandoval) and Gabriel Nunez (aka Gabriel Nunez Solis) [collectively “Nunez,” individually by

17
     their first   names] filed       their   Complaint against Defendant Nissan North America,                   Inc.,   and a         later
18
     dismissed party      (i.e.,   Brown Automotive,        Inc.    dba Puente    Hills).     After the dismissal of Brown,
19

     the Complaint pleads one cause of action against Nissan: breach of express warranties.
20

21   Defendant Nissan answered.

22
             The Complaint          alleges   0n December         15, 2019, Plaintiffs       Nunez purchased a 2020 Nissan
23
     Versa, which    was covered by express            warranties.      The Subject Vehicle was delivered with
24
     nonconformities that were not repaired             (11111   5-16   &   18-19).
25

             Defendant Nissan moves to compel                    arbitration.   Plaintiffs    Nunez oppose.
26

27

28
     RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION -                                1
     Statement 0f Law


            Merit    The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”)                       [9   U.S.C. §1,      et.   seq.] authorizes


     enforcement of arbitration clauses unless grounds exist in law or equity for the revocation of any


     contract. (9 U.S.C. §2.) In situations                governed by the FAA, conflicting                   state    law   is   preempted      in


     either state or federal courts. (Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v.                    Board of Trustees 0f Leland Stanford

     Junior University (1989) 489 U.S. 468, 477.)                  Under the FAA,          to      compel     arbitration, a       finding

     must be made    that    an agreement exists for arbitration between the parties and that the agreement


     covers the dispute.        (AT&T     Technologies, Inc.        v.   Communications Workers of America (1986)
10

     475 U.S. 643, 648-49.) The enforcement of an arbitration clause                               is   a matter of ordinary state-law
ll


12   contract principles and should be enforced according to their terms.                                 (AT&T      Mobility     LLC v.

13   Concepcion (201       1)   131 S.Ct. 1740, 1745.) Thus, arbitration agreements can be declared

14
     unenforceable on contract defenses of fraud, duress, or unconscionability.                                (Id. at p.        1746.

15
               California:      Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281 .2, a party                           to   an arbitration
16

     agreement    may move         to   compel   arbitration if the other contractual party refuses to arbitrate,                          and
17


18   the court shall order the parties to arbitrate if it determines that an agreement t0 arbitrate exists


19   unless (a) the right to arbitration         is   been waived,       (b)   ground exist to revoke the agreement, 0r                        (c)

20
     a party to the arbitration agreement             is   a party to a pending action with a third-party, arising from

21
     the   same transaction or      series   0f related transaction and a probability exists 0f conflicting rulings.
22

     The court must determine whether a written                  arbitration        agreement       exists, if   any defense        to   its
23

24   enforcement    is   raised,   and whether the agreement              is   enforceable. (Rosenthal v. Great Western


25   Fin. Sec. Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413.)                 The     petitioner bears the            burden of proving the

26
     existence 0f the arbitration agreement by the preponderance 0f the evidence while the respondent

27

28
     RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION                                    -   2