Lannagan v. Andersen Windows, Inc.

vague description of the alleged defect(s) in the subject vehicle. (FAC ¶¶ 14-20.) Plaintiff seems to be alleging that the subject vehicle suffers from the described “Steering Defect” in some manner, but if so, the FAC has failed to state when and how that was discovered in the subject vehicle. Generic claims of defects, without more, will not suffice to state the claim, as “[t]he very existence of a warranty presupposes that some defects may occur.” (Santana v. FCA US, LLC (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 334, 345.) Greater specificity as to this specific vehicle is required to state this claim.

For COAs 1-4 and 6, Plaintiff is granted 15 days leave to amend. However, continued leave to amend should not be presumed. Plaintiff should ensure that any further amendment fully articulates the factual basis for each.

In light of the foregoing rulings on the Demurrer, the Motion to Strike is MOOT.

Counsel for Defendants are to give notice of these rulings. 12 Lannagan v. O/C Andersen Windows, Inc. 13 Alvarado vs. A) Motion to Compel Arbitration Alleviate Partners LLC Defendants Alleviate Partners LLC and Shawna Mosley’s (“Defendants” together for this ruling) Motion to Compel Arbitration (“Motion”) is DENIED.

Defendants have produced a copy of a valid arbitration agreement (“Agreement”) between Defendants and plaintiff Sandy Alvarado (“Plaintiff”), which requires arbitration between the parties under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). (Mosely Decl., Ex. A.)

“Under both the FAA and California law, arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, except upon such grounds that exist at law or in equity for voiding any contract. [Citation.] Such challenges to the validity of arbitration agreements can be divided into two types. [Citation.] One type specifically challenges the validity of the agreement to arbitrate. The second challenges the contract as a whole, either on a ground that directly affects the entire agreement or on the ground that the illegality of one of the contract's provisions renders the whole contract invalid. (Ibid.)” (Winter v. Window Fashions Pros., Inc. (2008) 166 Cal. App. 4th 943, 947 (“Winter”).) “As a matter of federal law, arbitration clauses are “ ‘ “separable” from the contracts in which they are embedded.’ ” [Citation.] . . . a challenge to the arbitration clause itself must be decided by the court. [Citation.] Nevertheless, a court still must consider one type of challenge to the overall contract, i.e., a claim that the party resisting arbitration never actually agreed to be bound.” (Winter, supra, 166 Cal. App. 4th at 947–48.)

“Only ‘generally applicable contract defenses, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability, may be applied to invalidate arbitration agreements without contravening § 2 of the FAA.” (Giuliano v.