SARISHAMA MAHARAJ VS. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

7/09/2026 – Law and Motion Calendar Judge Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 23 of 27

2:00 PM LINE: 7 25-CIV-08949 SARISHAMA MAHARAJ VS. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

SARISHAMA MAHARAJ EMILY MAYERS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA ALI AMERIPOUR

DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S MOTION TO COMPEL BINDING ARBITRATION

TENTATIVE RULING:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

For the following reasons, Defendant Hyundai Motor America’s Motion to Compel Binding Arbitration is GRANTED.

Defendant Hyundai Motor America moves to compel arbitration under the arbitration provision in the 2022 Owner’s Handbook & Warranty Information (the “Warranty”), not under the Retail Installment Sales Contract (“RISC”).

Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 requires the court to order arbitration if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, unless the moving party has waived the right to compel arbitration, grounds exist for revocation of the agreement, or litigation with a third party creates a risk of conflicting rulings on common issues. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.)

Arbitration is a matter of contract; a party may not be compelled to arbitrate a dispute the party did not agree to arbitrate. (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236; see also OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 125; Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 97.)

The party seeking arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence, while the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving any defense. (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn., supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 236; Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 972; Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413.)

The moving party satisfies its initial burden by producing a copy of the arbitration agreement or by stating its provisions verbatim. (Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218-219; Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 165-166; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1330.)

If the opposing party does not dispute the existence or authenticity of the agreement, the moving party need not present additional evidence to authenticate the agreement. (Gamboa, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at pp. 165-166.)

Kostandian v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 872 is particularly instructive. There, the Court of Appeal held that the manufacturer met its initial burden to establish a warranty-booklet arbitration agreement where it produced the booklet containing the arbitration provision, recited the relevant terms in its moving papers, and the plaintiff did not dispute the existence of an arbitration agreement in the warranty booklet. (Id. at pp. 884-885; see also Gamboa, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at pp. 165-166.)

Here, the arbitration agreement under which Defendant seeks to compel arbitration is contained in the Warranty. (Ameripour Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. 2.) Defendant produced a copy of the Warranty and set forth the operative arbitration language under the heading “BINDING ARBITRATION FOR CALIFORNIA VEHICLES ONLY,” which provides:

7/09/2026 – Law and Motion Calendar Judge Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 24 of 27

If you purchased or leased your Hyundai vehicle in the State of California, you and we, Hyundai Motor America, each agree that any claim or disputes between us (including between you and any of our affiliated companies) related to or arising out of your vehicle purchase, advertising for the vehicle, use of your vehicle, the performance of the vehicle, any service relating to the vehicle, the vehicle warranty, representations in the warranty, or the duties contemplated under the warranty, including without limitation claims related to false or misleading advertising, unfair competition, breach of contract or warranty, the failure to conform a vehicle to warranty, failure to repurchase or replace your vehicle, or claims for a refund or partial refund of your vehicle’s purchase price (excluding personal injury claims), but excluding claims brought under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, shall be resolved by binding arbitration at either your or our election, even if the claim is initially filed in a court of law. (Id.)

Plaintiff does not dispute the existence or authenticity of the arbitration agreement contained in the Warranty, does not argue that Plaintiff opted out of the Warranty arbitration provision, and does not identify any claim that falls outside the Warranty provision or within the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act exclusion.

Instead, Plaintiff’s opposition focuses on the RISC between Plaintiff and non-party Capitol Hyundai. (Opp. at p. 1:4-6.)

Because Defendant seeks to compel arbitration under its own Warranty provision, Plaintiff’s arguments regarding equitable estoppel and third-party beneficiary status under the RISC do not defeat the Motion.

The Motion is therefore GRANTED. This action is STAYED pending completion of arbitration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.)

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Defendant shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.

The Court alerts the parties to revised Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv), amended effective January 1, 2024, regarding the wording of proposed orders.