ASTUDILLO, et al. vs TESLA, INC., A TEXAS CORPORATION

25CV113076: ASTUDILLO, et al. vs TESLA, INC., A TEXAS CORPORATION 07/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 17

Tentative Ruling - 07/09/2026 Chad A. Stegeman

The Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by TESLA, INC., a Texas Corporation on 08/12/2025 is Granted.

The Motion of Defendant Tesla Inc. (“Defendant”) to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED and this matter is stayed pending the outcome of arbitration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2, subd. (a).) REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) is granted as to Exhibit 3, which is a court record. (Evid. Code, § 452. (d)(1).)

BACKGROUND This motion to compel arbitration arises out of Plaintiffs Isaac Astudillo and Hayabusa LLC (“Plaintiffs”)’ purchase of a 2023 Tesla Model Y (the “Vehicle”) from Defendant on or about March 27, 2023. (Kim Decl. ¶ 3.) The Purchase Agreement entered by Plaintiffs in connection with this purchase contains an arbitration provision and also provides a procedure by which the consumer can “opt out” of the Agreement within thirty days of executing the Purchase Agreement. (Kim Decl. ¶¶ 6-7, Exs.1-2.) There is no indication that Plaintiffs opted out of the Agreement.

The Purchase Agreement contained an Agreement to Arbitrate, which states the following in pertinent part:

Please carefully read this provision, which applies to any dispute between you and Tesla, Inc. and its affiliates, (together “Tesla”).

...

If not resolved within 60 days, you agree that any dispute arising out of or relating to any aspect of the relationship between you and Tesla will not be decided by a judge or jury but instead by a single arbitrator in an arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association (AAA) under its Consumer Arbitration Rules. This includes claims arising before this Agreement, such as claims related to statements about our products. . . .

To initiate the arbitration, you will pay the filing fee directly to AAA and we will pay all subsequent AAA fees for the arbitration, except you are responsible for your own attorney, expert, and other witness fees and costs unless otherwise provided by law. If you prevail on any claim, we will reimburse you your filing fee. The arbitration will be held in the city or county of your residence. To learn more about the Rules and how to begin an arbitration, you may call any AAA office or go to www.adr.org. 25CV113076: ASTUDILLO, et al. vs TESLA, INC., A TEXAS CORPORATION 07/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 17 The arbitrator may only resolve disputes between you and Tesla, and may not consolidate claims without the consent of all parties.

If a court or arbitrator decides that any part of this agreement to arbitrate cannot be enforced as to a particular claim for relief or remedy, then that claim or remedy (and only that claim or remedy) must be brought in court and any other claims must be arbitrated.

If you prefer, you may instead take an individual dispute to small claims court.

You may opt out of arbitration within 30 days after signing this Agreement by sending a letter to: Tesla, Inc.; P.O. Box 15430; Fremont, CA 94539-7970, stating your name, Order Number or Vehicle Identification Number, and intent to opt out of the arbitration provision. If you do not opt out, this agreement to arbitrate overrides any different arbitration agreement between us, including any arbitration agreement in a lease or finance contract.

(Kim Decl., Ex. 1.)

Plaintiffs initiated this action in February 2025 alleging various violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“SBA”) against Defendant relating to the purchase of the Vehicle. (Complaint.) Defendant moved to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, pursuant to the arbitration provisions in the Purchase Agreement. (ROA.)

LAW Motion to Compel Arbitration – Legal Standard (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2) When the parties to an arbitrable controversy have agreed in writing to arbitrate it and one has refused, the court, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, must ordinarily grant a petition to compel arbitration. (McIsaac v. Foremost Ins. Co. Grand Rapids, Michigan (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 418, 422.) On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, unless an exception applies. (McIsaac, supra, 64 Cal.App.5th at p. 422; Code Civ.

Proc., § 1281.2.) Once the existence of a valid arbitration clause has been established, the party opposing arbitration has the burden to demonstrate that the agreement cannot be interpreted to require arbitration of the dispute. (McIsaac, supra, 64 Cal.App.5th at p. 422; Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) The party seeking to compel arbitration can meet its initial burden by attaching to the petition a copy of the arbitration agreement purporting to bear the respondent's signature. (Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 219.)

Where the respondent challenges the validity of the signature, the petitioner must “establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the signature was authentic.” (Id. at p. 114.) In response, the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV113076: ASTUDILLO, et al. vs TESLA, INC., A TEXAS CORPORATION 07/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 17 opposing party must establish a defense to arbitration by a preponderance of the evidence. (Ibid.; Code Civ. Proc., §1281.2, subd. (b).) Agreements to Arbitrate Evaluated Under Contract Law Under a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. section 1281.2, the trial court determines if there is a duty to arbitrate and must therefore evaluate the underlying agreement under general contract law. (United Transportation Union v.

Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 804, 808; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1301.) California law is clear that there is no contract until there has been a meeting of the minds on all material points. (Banner Entertainment, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 348, 357-358.) Arbitration agreements are “valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract.” (Dougherty v. Roseville Heritage Partners (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 93, 101; Code Civ.

Proc., § 1281.) DISCUSSION Here, Defendant has attached a copy of the Agreement reflecting Plaintiffs’ purchase order and establishing a prima facie showing that Plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate their claims. (Kim Decl. ¶ 3; Ex. 1.) Plaintiffs have not presented any evidence to defeat this showing and object to the Motion on the basis of unconscionability. Unconscionability Next, the Court examines whether the arbitration agreement should be invalidated for reasons of unconscionability. (OTO, L.L.C. v.

Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 125.) The unconscionability doctrine has both procedural and substantive elements, “the former focusing on oppression or surprise due to unequal bargaining power, the latter on overly harsh or one-sided results.” (Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2013) 57 Cal.4th 1109, 1133.) One common formulation of unconscionability is that it refers to an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties together with contract terms that are unreasonably favorable to the other party. (Murrey, supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at p. 1236.)

Both procedural and substantive unconscionability must be shown for the defense to be established, but not necessarily in the same degree. (OTO, supra, 8 Cal.5th at p. 125.) The unconscionability standard is evaluated on a sliding scale, so that the more substantively onesided the contract term, the less evidence of procedural unconscionability is required to conclude that the term is unenforceable, and vice versa. (Id. at pp. 125–126.) When unconscionability is shown, the trial court has discretion either to refuse to enforce the contract or to strike the unconscionable provision and enforce the remainder of the contract. (Civ.

Code, § 1670.5, subd. (a); Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 122.) Procedural Unconscionability

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV113076: ASTUDILLO, et al. vs TESLA, INC., A TEXAS CORPORATION 07/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 17 Where an arbitration agreement is offered on a “take-it-or-leave-it basis, it is procedurally unconscionable.” (Murrey, supra, 87 Cal.App.5th 1223, 1238.) Here, Plaintiffs were provided with an option to opt out of the Agreement but appeared not to do so. (Kim Decl.¶¶ 6-7.) Substantive Unconscionability Moreover, there is nothing about the substance of the Agreement that is unconscionable.

The Agreement provides that the arbitration will be conducted under the rules of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) and provides a link for the consumer to access the AAA rules. (Kim Decl., Ex. 1.) The Agreement additionally provides that Defendant will reimburse Plaintiffs for the filing fee should they prevail and that arbitration will be held in the city or county of the consumer’s residence. (Ibid.) Finally, the Agreement provides a simple method for the consumer to opt out of the Agreement by sending a simple letter to the P.O.

Box identified, stating the consumer’s name, identification of the Vehicle by VIN or order number, and stating an intent to opt out of the Agreement. (Ibid.) Plaintiffs argue that having no choice to arbitrate but with AAA renders the arbitration provision unconscionable but offers no explanation as to why JAMS, their apparent preference, would be any different. (Oppo., p. 2:21-22.) Thus, the Court rejects Plaintiffs’ objection. CONCLUSION

As Defendant has established that Plaintiffs agreed to resolve the disputes by arbitration and that the Agreement to arbitrate is neither procedurally nor substantive unconscionable, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 97–98; Murrey, supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at p. 1236.) This action is STAYED pending completion of arbitration. (Cal. Civ. Proc. § 1281.4.)

The pre-trial conference and trial are vacated. The parties shall provide a status update regarding arbitration at the compliance and further case management conference scheduled for July 9, 2027, at 9:00 a.m. Case management statements are due 15 days prior to the conference.

If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court.

HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?

THROUGH ECOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV113076: ASTUDILLO, et al. vs TESLA, INC., A TEXAS CORPORATION 07/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 17 3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search” 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling” 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select “Proceed”

BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely.

BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.