Capital One, N.A. v. Alain P. Dela Rosa

6 9:00 2 24CV448627 Sean D. Pieraccini v. FCA US, LLC, et al.

Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Compliance with Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and for Sanctions.

See Line 2 below for complete tentative ruling. After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal order.

9:00 3 25CV457205 Capital One, N.A. v. Alain P. Dela Rosa

Order on Plaintiff’s Motion that the Truth of All Specified Facts in the Requests for Admission, Set One, be deemed Admitted by Defendant.

See Line 3 below for complete tentative ruling. After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal order.

9:00 4 25CV461649 Abhishek Aggarwal v. Rivian, LLC, et al.

Order on Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Civil Action

See Line 4 below for complete tentative ruling. After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal order.

18 SO ORDERED.

Date: May 15, 2026 Hon. Vincent I. Parrett Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara

19 Line 4 Case Name: Abhishek Aggarwal v. Rivian, LLC, et al.

Case No.: 25CV461649

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

Defendant Rivian, LLC (“Rivian”) moves to compel Plaintiff Abhishek Aggarwal (“Plaintiff’) to arbitrate his claims and to stay this civil action pending completion of arbitration. Notice of Motion (the “Motion”) at 1:23-25 (filed Sept. 16, 2025).

The Motion came on for hearing on May 15, 2026, at 9:00 AM in Department 16. After reviewing all the papers and the record, and giving counsel for all parties the full and fair opportunity to be heard, the Court finds and rules as follows.

I. BACKGROUND

As pleaded in the Complaint, on June 26, 2024, Plaintiff Abhishek Aggarwal (“Plaintiff”) purchased a 2025 Rivian R1S, VIN 7PDSGBBA0SN048005 (“Vehicle”) which was manufactured, distributed or sold by Defendant Rivian, LLC (“Defendant”). (Complaint at ¶ 4.) Plaintiff alleges that during the warranty period, the Vehicle contained or developed various defects. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Plaintiff has sued Defendant for the breach of express and implied warranties, conversion, and negligence. Plaintiff alleges twelve causes of action in this regard. Defendant moves to compel arbitration pursuant to the Rivian Motor Vehicle Agreement, executed at the time of sale.

Having considered the terms of the Rivian Automotive Agreement —especially its arbitration clause, which all parties agreed to, compelling arbitration of these claims — and the circumstances surrounding its execution, the Court finds and rules that it i s binding and so that the Motion to Compel Arbitration should be granted.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Defendant points out that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) governs the dispute because the lease here affects interstate commerce as the transacti on involved the lease of a car. (Mtn. to Compel Arbitration at p. 4:24-25, fn. 2.) The dispute resolution provision of the Rivian Automotive Agreement provides “[t]his Section, Dispute Resolution – Arbitration and Class Action Waiver, its subject matter, formation and enforceability will be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act a s interpreted by the federal courts and not any state law regarding arbitration.” (Declaration of Lauren Seimas [“Seimas Decl.”], Ex. A at p. 8.)