On November 09, 2022 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Lett, Dorothy K.,
and
Does 1 Through 10, Inclusive,
Hyundai Motor America,
for Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
CALIFORNIA CONSUMER ATTORNEYS, P.C SUPERIOR
Michael H. Rosenstein (SBN 169091) cou! ER! INO
SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
mhr@calattorneys.com
Sepehr Daghighian (SBN 239349) AUG 08 2023 ap.
sd@calattorneys.com
Alastair F. Hamblin (SBN 282044)
afh@calattorneys.com 0 li ere
10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, California 90024
Tel: (310) 872-2600
Fax: (310) 730-7377
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
DOROTHY K. LETT
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
11
12 DOROTHY K. LETT, an individual, Case No.: CIVSB2225377
Judge: Hon. Joseph T. Ortiz
13 Plaintiff, Dept.: S17
14
vs. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
15 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC.; a COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY
16 California Corporation, and DOES | through PROCEEDINGS
10, inclusive,
17
Filed: November 11, 2022
18 Defendants. Trial: Not Set
Hearing Date: August 21, 2023
19
Hearing Time: 09:00 a.m.
20
[Submitted concurrently with the
21 Declaration of Alastair F. Hamblin]
22
23
&
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY
PROCEEDINGS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page(s)
I INTRODUCTION
Il STATEMENT OF FACTS
Il. ARGUMENT
A Governing Law
B Defendant Cannot Invoke the Purchase Agreement’s Arbitration Provision
Cc PlaintiffIs Not Equitably Estopped From Asserting Its Breach of Warranty
Claims In Court
10 Defendant Cannot Invoke the Purchase Agreement’s Arbitration Provision
11 Defendant May Not Enforce the Purchase Agreement’s Arbitration Provision
Pursuant to the Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel
12
i Defendant’s Reliance on Felisilda is Misplaced as That Case is
13 Inapposite to the Facts of The Instant Case 10
14 il In Selecting Conflicting Authority Among CCourtsts of Appeal, Ochoa
¢
v. Ford Motor Company is On Point.. lI
15
ii In Selecting Conflicting Authority Among Courts of Appeal, Ochoa
16 is Superior 12
17 Iv. Federal Law Rejects Felisilda 12
18 Defendant is Not a Third-Party Beneficiary And Cannot Enforce the
Arbitration Provision 13
19
20 IV. CONCLUSION 1S
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i
PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY
PROCEEDINGS.
Document Filed Date
August 09, 2023
Case Filing Date
November 09, 2022
Category
Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
CALIFORNIA CONSUMER ATTORNEYS, P.C SUPERIOR Michael H. Rosenstein (SBN 169091) cou! ER! INO SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT mhr@calattorneys.com Sepehr Daghighian (SBN 239349) AUG 08 2023 ap. sd@calattorneys.com Alastair F. Hamblin (SBN 282044) afh@calattorneys.com 0 li ere 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, California 90024 Tel: (310) 872-2600 Fax: (310) 730-7377 Attorneys for Plaintiff, DOROTHY K. LETT SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 11 12 DOROTHY K. LETT, an individual, Case No.: CIVSB2225377 Judge: Hon. Joseph T. Ortiz 13 Plaintiff, Dept.: S17 14 vs. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO 15 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC.; a COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY 16 California Corporation, and DOES | through PROCEEDINGS 10, inclusive, 17 Filed: November 11, 2022 18 Defendants. Trial: Not Set Hearing Date: August 21, 2023 19 Hearing Time: 09:00 a.m. 20 [Submitted concurrently with the 21 Declaration of Alastair F. Hamblin] 22 23 & 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page(s) I INTRODUCTION Il STATEMENT OF FACTS Il. ARGUMENT A Governing Law B Defendant Cannot Invoke the Purchase Agreement’s Arbitration Provision Cc PlaintiffIs Not Equitably Estopped From Asserting Its Breach of Warranty Claims In Court 10 Defendant Cannot Invoke the Purchase Agreement’s Arbitration Provision 11 Defendant May Not Enforce the Purchase Agreement’s Arbitration Provision Pursuant to the Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel 12 i Defendant’s Reliance on Felisilda is Misplaced as That Case is 13 Inapposite to the Facts of The Instant Case 10 14 il In Selecting Conflicting Authority Among CCourtsts of Appeal, Ochoa ¢ v. Ford Motor Company is On Point.. lI 15 ii In Selecting Conflicting Authority Among Courts of Appeal, Ochoa 16 is Superior 12 17 Iv. Federal Law Rejects Felisilda 12 18 Defendant is Not a Third-Party Beneficiary And Cannot Enforce the Arbitration Provision 13 19 20 IV. CONCLUSION 1S 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS.