Hood v. Hyundai Motor America

Defendant Hyundai Motor America’s motion to compel arbitration is DENIED.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code § 452, subd. (d).)

Plaintiff Maggie Hood’s evidentiary objection is OVERRULED. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1330; Condee v. Longwood Mgmt. Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 219 [authentication of arbitration agreement is not required].)

Defendant brings this motion under both the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. section 1 et. seq. (FAA) and the California Arbitration Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 1285, et. seq. (CAA). There is no dispute the FAA applies. (Victrola 89, LLC v. Jaman Properties 8 LLC (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 337, 355; Declaration of Ali Ameripour (“Ameripour Decl.”), Ex. 2 at p. 14.) Both the FAA and CAA require a finding that an agreement exists for arbitration between the parties and the agreement covers the dispute. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1981.2; 9 U.S.C. § 2; AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America (1986) 475 U.S. 643, 648-49.) State law principles of contract formation govern whether the parties agreed to arbitrate a dispute. (Berman v. Freedom Financial Network, LLC (9th Cir. 2022) 30 F.4th 849, 855.)

Here, Defendant relies on the arbitration provision in the Owner’s Handbook & Warranty Information (the “Handbook”). (Ameripour Decl., Ex. 2.) But Defendant has not shown the Handbook reflects an actual agreement with Plaintiff. Defendant does not claim Plaintiff signed or accepted the arbitration provision in the Handbook or was even informed of its existence. Instead, Defendant argues that equitable estoppel applies, as Plaintiff’s claims rely on that warranty. But an essential element of any contract is the consent of the parties, or mutual assent. (Donovan v. RRL Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 261, 270.) A warranty is not a traditional contract: it is effectively a unilateral promise to the consumer. (Gavaldon v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1246, 1258; Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 824, 830.) Equitable estoppel thus cannot apply in this context.

Nor are Plaintiffs’ claims clearly dependent upon the Handbook in any event. (Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1122, 1133 [warranty claims arise from a statutory scheme; unless properly disclaimed, every retail sale of consumer goods includes the implied warranty that the goods are merchantable].) Defendant has therefore failed to show that equitable estoppel applies.

Defendant has failed to establish that an enforceable arbitration agreement exists between Defendant and Plaintiff. The motion is thus DENIED.

Counsel for Plaintiff shall give notice of this ruling.