On March 24, 2022 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Espinosa, Celia,
Espinosa, Eduardo,
and
American Honda Motor Co. Inc,
Does 1 Through 10,
for Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
SCARBOROUGH LLP
Michael Hurvitz (SBN 249050)
J.
mike.hurvitz({1jnelsonmullins.com
Ian G. Schuler (SBN 275052)
ian.schuler@nelsonmullins.com
Ariel N. Redfem (SBN 3413 14)
aricl.rcdfcm@nclsonmullins.com
750 B Street, Suite 2200
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619.489.61 10
Facsimile: 619.821.2834
Attorneys for Defendant
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
P
l
I [N AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
SLARBOROL’CH
CELIA ESPINOSA and EDUARDO ESPINOSA, Case No. CIVSBZZO6449
[Aw
Plaintiffs. DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA
é A1
MOTOR C0., INC.’S REPLY IN
RIIFY
vs. SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO
Anmwns
COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY
MULIIVS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC, a ACTION
DOES through 10.
California corporation, and 1
inclusive. Judge: Hon. David E. Driscoll
NFLSOV
Dept.: $22
Defendant.
Date: September 26, 2023
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept: $22
Trial Date:
Action Filed: March 24, 2022
T0 THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:
Defendant American Honda Motor C0,. Inc. (“AHM”) submits this Reply in Support 0f its
Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings.
///
///
ém ?«/f.
.(___\)
d
/// r
///
///
l
DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
INC.‘S ITS MOTION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION AND STAY ACTION
l. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs’ Opposition (“Opp“) hypocritically takes the position that AHM has nothing to
d0 with their lcasc agreement and is foreclosed from seeking t0 arbitrate under thc contract.
Plaintiffs must have forgotten that for the past thirteen months,‘ in opposing AHM’s demurrers to
their fraudulent inducement-concealment cause of action, Plaintiffs told this Court that AHM
induced them to enter the very same contract they are now claiming is unauthentic and
unenforceable. Plaintiffs’ opposition simultaneously demonstrates the frivolousness of their
fraudulent inducement-concealment cause of action while failing t0 overcome AHM’S Motion t0
Compel. For the reasons discussed below, this Court should grant AHM’S Motion to Compel
P
ll
10 Arbitration.
ARBORUL’GH H II. LEGAL ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
Aw
St
I
AT
12 A. AHM met its burden by demonstrating the existence of an arbitration
& agreement.
RIIEY 13
ATTURVEYS
HNb
l4 AHM met its initial burden in demonstrating the existence of an agreement t0 arbitrate, and
MLII
conversely, Plaintiffs failed to present required evidence t0 challenge the authenticity of the
NFISOV
16 agreement.
I7 Attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Ariel N. Redfem is the same Closed-End Motor
18 Vehicle Lease Agreement ("lcasc agreement”) that Plaintiffs previously attached as Exhibit 2 to
l9 their Second Amended Complaint. It is unclear if Plaintiffs are challenging the authenticity 0f a
20 document they filed as an attachment to their operative Complaint in this case. (Opp. at p. 2: l 2-1 5.)
2] Regardless, the party seeking arbitration has the “burden 0f proving the existence ofa valid
22 arbitration agreement by a preponderance ot‘the evidence. while a party opposing the petition bears
23 the burden 0f proving by a preponderance of thc cvidcncc any fact necessary t0 its defense." (Ruiz
24 v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 842; Gamboa v. Northeast Community
25 Clinic (202]) 72 Cal.App.5th 158. 164-165.)
26 This initial prima facie burden may be met with a copy of the arbitration agreement.
27 (Gamboa, supra, 72 Ca1.App.5th at I65.) For this stcp, "it is not necessary t0 follow the normal
28
'
Plaintiffs filed their first opposition to AHM's demurrer to thc fraud claim in the initial complaint on August 18, 2022.
2
DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.‘S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION AND STAY ACTION
Document Filed Date
September 18, 2023
Case Filing Date
March 24, 2022
Category
Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP Michael Hurvitz (SBN 249050) J. mike.hurvitz({1jnelsonmullins.com Ian G. Schuler (SBN 275052) ian.schuler@nelsonmullins.com Ariel N. Redfem (SBN 3413 14) aricl.rcdfcm@nclsonmullins.com 750 B Street, Suite 2200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619.489.61 10 Facsimile: 619.821.2834 Attorneys for Defendant AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA P l I [N AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SLARBOROL’CH CELIA ESPINOSA and EDUARDO ESPINOSA, Case No. CIVSBZZO6449 [Aw Plaintiffs. DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA é A1 MOTOR C0., INC.’S REPLY IN RIIFY vs. SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO Anmwns COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY MULIIVS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC, a ACTION DOES through 10. California corporation, and 1 inclusive. Judge: Hon. David E. Driscoll NFLSOV Dept.: $22 Defendant. Date: September 26, 2023 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept: $22 Trial Date: Action Filed: March 24, 2022 T0 THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND COUNSEL OF RECORD: Defendant American Honda Motor C0,. Inc. (“AHM”) submits this Reply in Support 0f its Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings. /// /// ém ?«/f. .(___\) d /// r /// /// l DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., REPLY IN SUPPORT OF INC.‘S ITS MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY ACTION l. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs’ Opposition (“Opp“) hypocritically takes the position that AHM has nothing to d0 with their lcasc agreement and is foreclosed from seeking t0 arbitrate under thc contract. Plaintiffs must have forgotten that for the past thirteen months,‘ in opposing AHM’s demurrers to their fraudulent inducement-concealment cause of action, Plaintiffs told this Court that AHM induced them to enter the very same contract they are now claiming is unauthentic and unenforceable. Plaintiffs’ opposition simultaneously demonstrates the frivolousness of their fraudulent inducement-concealment cause of action while failing t0 overcome AHM’S Motion t0 Compel. For the reasons discussed below, this Court should grant AHM’S Motion to Compel P ll 10 Arbitration. ARBORUL’GH H II. LEGAL ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES Aw St I AT 12 A. AHM met its burden by demonstrating the existence of an arbitration & agreement. RIIEY 13 ATTURVEYS HNb l4 AHM met its initial burden in demonstrating the existence of an agreement t0 arbitrate, and MLII conversely, Plaintiffs failed to present required evidence t0 challenge the authenticity of the NFISOV 16 agreement. I7 Attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Ariel N. Redfem is the same Closed-End Motor 18 Vehicle Lease Agreement ("lcasc agreement”) that Plaintiffs previously attached as Exhibit 2 to l9 their Second Amended Complaint. It is unclear if Plaintiffs are challenging the authenticity 0f a 20 document they filed as an attachment to their operative Complaint in this case. (Opp. at p. 2: l 2-1 5.) 2] Regardless, the party seeking arbitration has the “burden 0f proving the existence ofa valid 22 arbitration agreement by a preponderance ot‘the evidence. while a party opposing the petition bears 23 the burden 0f proving by a preponderance of thc cvidcncc any fact necessary t0 its defense." (Ruiz 24 v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 842; Gamboa v. Northeast Community 25 Clinic (202]) 72 Cal.App.5th 158. 164-165.) 26 This initial prima facie burden may be met with a copy of the arbitration agreement. 27 (Gamboa, supra, 72 Ca1.App.5th at I65.) For this stcp, "it is not necessary t0 follow the normal 28 ' Plaintiffs filed their first opposition to AHM's demurrer to thc fraud claim in the initial complaint on August 18, 2022. 2 DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.‘S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY ACTION