PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION IS GRANTED.
Background
On January 24, 2020, Plaintiff Elmar Perez filed the instant action against Defendants WB Simi Valley CDJR, LLC (hereinafter “WB Simi Valley”); Santander Consumer USA Inc. dba and erroneously sued as Chrysler Capital (hereinafter “Chrysler Capital”); and Does 1 through 20. The Complaint asserts a single cause of action for Violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act – Injunctive Relief.
Defendants WB Simi Valley and Chrysler Capital (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”) move for an order compelling Plaintiff to arbitrate his claims and staying the instant action.
Legal Standard
California law incorporates many of the basic policy objectives contained in the Federal Arbitration Act, including a presumption in favor of arbitrability. (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 971-72.) The petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the p
Hearing Date
July 09, 2020
Type
Contractual Fraud (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION IS GRANTED.
Background
On January 24, 2020, Plaintiff Elmar Perez filed the instant action against Defendants WB Simi Valley CDJR, LLC (hereinafter “WB Simi Valley”); Santander Consumer USA Inc. dba and erroneously sued as Chrysler Capital (hereinafter “Chrysler Capital”); and Does 1 through 20. The Complaint asserts a single cause of action for Violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act – Injunctive Relief.
Defendants WB Simi Valley and Chrysler Capital (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”) move for an order compelling Plaintiff to arbitrate his claims and staying the instant action.
Legal Standard
California law incorporates many of the basic policy objectives contained in the Federal Arbitration Act, including a presumption in favor of arbitrability. (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 971-72.) The petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the p