motion to compel arbitration
TENTATIVE RULINGS
DEPARTMENT N17
Judge Craig L. Griffin
Date: June 15, 2026 Time: 2:00 PM
If you are submitting to the tentative, please call the Clerk at (657) 622-5617.
Appearances may be IN PERSON or through ZOOM. If appearing by ZOOM, go to https://www.occourts.org/media-relations/civil.html and click on the yellow box that reads: “CLICK HERE TO APPEAR FOR THE ONLINE CHECK-IN/ZOOM PILOT PROGRAM.” Call the department with any questions.
COURT REPORTERS: Official Court Reporters (i.e. Court Reporters employed by the Court) are NOT typically provided for law and motion matters in this department. If a party desires a record of a law and motion proceeding, it will be the party’s responsibility to provide a court reporter. Parties must comply with the Court’s policy on the use of privately retained court reporters which can be found at:
• Civil Court Reporter Pooling; and
• For additional information, please see the Court’s website at Court Reporter Interpreter Services for additional information regarding the availability of Court Reporters.
PUBLIC ACCESS: The public may attend the ZOOM session by telephone. Call the department for a call-in number.
# 1 Tarakji v. Secure Cont. to 9/28. One Capital Corp. 2 Schutzman v. Stern The application of attorney Sarah Benowich to appear pro hac vice as counsel for Defendants Oren Stern and Amit Louzon in this matter is hereby GRANTED pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 9.40.
Defendants Oren Stern and Amit Louzon shall give notice. 3 Mercedes-Benz Defendant Yanira Zamorano’s unopposed motion to compel Vehicle Trust v. arbitration is GRANTED. Zamorano Defendant met her burden to show a written arbitration agreement exists that covers plaintiff’s claims in this action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
This action is stayed pending completion of arbitration. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.)
The Case Management Conference scheduled for July 10, 2026 is VACATED. An Status Conference re Arbitration is scheduled for June 11, 2027, at 9:30 a.m.
Defendant shall give notice of this ruling. 4 The Irvine Plaintiff The Irvine Company LLC’s unopposed motion for leave Company LLC v. to file the Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Taquiero Taco, LLC The motion complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, and there was no prejudicial delay. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 473, subd. (a)(1); Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761 [applying “a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments”]; see also Declaration of Ernie Zachary Park ¶¶ 4-7.)
The Court deems the filing of the Second Amended Complaint on March 17, 2026 to be proper. (ROA 141.) Plaintiff shall serve the SAC in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 415.10 et. seq.
Counsel for Plaintiff shall give notice. 5 Cammack v. Before the Court is the Motion For Compliance Pursuant to General Motors LLC C.C.P. § 871.26, filed on 3/23/26 by Defendant General Motors LLC (“GM”).
Plaintiff Chad Cammack (“Plaintiff”) asserts that he has now complied with the disclosure requirements at issue, which GM does not dispute on reply. The Motion therefore appears to be MOOT, except as to the issue of sanctions.
Sanctions are clearly warranted here under C.C.P. § 871.26(j). Although Plaintiff asserts that there was some early uncertainty as to the application of §871.26 due to the opt-in provision that became effective on 4/1/25, there was no valid basis for uncertainty by the time GM filed its responsive pleading on 7/11/25. Plaintiff thus had 60 days from 7/11/25 to comply with C.C.P. § 871.26(f) and (g). Plaintiff failed to do so. (Lasater Decl., ¶ 6; Perks Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. 1.) Sanctions in the amount of $1,500 are therefore imposed under C.C.P. § 871.26(j), on Strategic Legal Practices, APC, to be paid to GM, through its counsel of record, within 15 days.
GM is to give notice of this ruling. 6 Johnson v. Hyundai The Motion to Compel Binding Arbitration, filed on 3/16/26 by Motor America Defendant Hyundai Motor America (HMA) is DENIED.
HMA has failed to show that the parties entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate here. HMA asserts that Plaintiff Alyssa Johnson (Plaintiff) agreed to arbitrate because HMA included an arbitration provision in its “Owner’s Handbook & Warranty Information” (Warranty) for the vehicle. (Ameripour Decl., ¶ 4 and Ex. 2.) But HMA has not shown that the Warranty reflects an actual agreement with Plaintiff: HMA does not present any