Malcolm Bull v. Car Search USA, et al.

filed with the Court or that may delay proceedings. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 128.5, subd. (b)(1).) Plaintiff does not identify authority expanding it to disregard of a scheduled appointment for viewing. The Court is also not prepared to find bad faith based on the two incidents described.

Finally, the Court sees no basis to find that Defendant's failure to appear for court sanctions on December 30, 2025 and January 28, 2026 comprises bad-faith litigation conduct. No hearing was held on December 30, 2025, so it is not clear what failure to appear is alleged for that date.

On January 28, 2026, the Court held a hearing on Defendant's Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint. (Minute Order Ian. 28, 2026.) The Court posted a tentative before the hearing, and following the hearing, adopted its tetative, in which the Court declined to consider Plaintiff's Opposition because it was late, but tnhe Court struck the Demurrer and ordered Defendant to file an Answer because Defendant failed to meet and confer. Assuming Sec. 128.5 can ever be applied to make sanctionable a party's failure to appear at a hearing on its own motion, which resulted in a ruling against that party, that section does not apply here.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that none of the conduct of which Plaintiff complains, in whole or in part, is grounds for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5. Finally, to the extent Plaintiff asks the Court to strike the Answers to the Second Amended Complaint filed on February 13, 2026 and March 13, 2026, the Motion cites no legal authority beyond section 128.5 to strike a pleading. Section 128.5, however, does not give the Court the authority to strike a pleading as a sanction.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Laurack D. Bray's Motion for Sanctions is denied. Judicial Assistant to give notice.

Motion of Joel A. Graboff, Esq. of LBM Law Group, LLC, to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff ADLI Law Group, PC, is granted. The proposed order filed on 05/14/2026 is signed this date. The ruling is to be effective only upon Moving Party filing a proof of service of the signed order and this minute order upon all parties. Until such proof of service is filed, of Joel A. Graboff, Esq. of LBM Law Group, LLC remains counsel of record. Order to Show Cause Re: Legal Representation on Plaintiff ADLI Law Group, PC is scheduled for 09/15/2026 at 9:30 am in Department 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse. Plaintiff ADLI Law Group, PC should appear through counsel on that date. Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 26STLC00099 Hearing Date: August 18, 2026 Dept: 26 TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Malcolm Bull's Motion to Compel Arbitration, for Court to Pick Arbitration Forum, for an Order Confirming Defendants Car Search USA and Westlake Services, LLC are in Material Breach of the Arbitration Clause, an Order for Fees and Costs Associated with Arbitration, and Request for Stay, is Granted in part and Continued in part, as follows:

The request to compel Defendants Car Search USA and Westlake Services, LLC dba Westlake Financial Services to arbitration before JAMS, or in the alternative, the American Arbitration Association, and to stay this action pending arbitration is Granted. Defendants Car Search USA and Westlake Services, LLC dba Westlake Financial Services are Ordered to arbitration before JAMS, or in the alternative, the American Arbitration Association. The Court Orders this action Stayed pending arbitration, except for the continued hearing set below.

The request to find that Defendants Car Search USA and Westlake Services, LLC dba Westlake Financial Services are in breach of the arbitration agreement and are in default of the arbitration is Granted. Defendants Car Search USA and Westlake Services, LLC dba Westlake Financial Services are in material breach of the agreement and in default of arbitration. The Court Orders Defendants Car Search USA and Westlake Services, LLC dba Westlake Financial Services to pay Plaintiff's reasonable attorney's fees and costs related to arbitration pursuant to Section 1281.97(b)(2), with the amount awarded to be determined by the arbitrator. The Court Orders Defendants Car Search USA and Westlake Services, LLC dba Westlake Financial Services to pay Plaintiff's reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees and costs, incurred as a result of the material breach pursuant to Section 1281.99(a).

The Court Continues the determination of the amount to be awarded under Section 1281.99(a) to 09/22/2026 at 10:00 am in Department 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse. By 08/25/2026, Plaintiff is to file and serve a supplemental declaration not to exceed three (3) pages regarding the award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred as a result of the breach. Defendants may file and serve an opposition no longer than three pages by 09/15/2026. Status Conference Re: Arbitration is set for 02/16/2027 at 9:30 am in Department 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse. Moving party to give notice.

Analysis: On January 7, 2026, Plaintiff Malcolm Bull ("Plaintiff") filed the instant action against Defendants Car Search USA ("Defendant Car Search"), Westlake Services, LLC dba Westlake Financial Services ("Defendant Westlake"), Merchants Bonding Company (Mutual) ("Defendant Merchants"). The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) Violation of Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code Sec. 1750 et seq; (2) Violation of California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200, et seq., Unlawful Acts or Practices; (3) Claim Against Surety; and (4) Violation of Code of Civil Procedure Sec.Sec. 1281.97 & 1281.99. Defendant Merchants filed its Answer on March 4, 2026; Defendant Car Search filed a General Denial on March 16, 2026. Defendant Westlake has not answered.

On May 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Arbitration, for Court to Pick Arbitration Forum, for an Order Confirming Defendants Car Search USA and Westlake Services, LLC are in Material Breach of the Arbitration Clause, an Order for Fees and Costs Associated with Arbitration, and Request for Stay. Defendant Car Search filed a Limited Opposition on August 4, 2026. Defendant Westlake has neither appeared in the action, nor filed an opposition to the instant Motion.

Discussion

Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendants Car Search and Westlake to arbitrate this matter pursuant to either Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 or the Federal Arbitration Act ("the FAA") at 9 U.S.C. section 4. In California, state procedural law applies by default to motions to compel arbitration. (Valencia v. Smyth (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 153, 177.) The FAA's procedural provisions only apply when expressly incorporated into the arbitration agreement by the parties. (Ibid.) "Arbitration under the [Federal Arbitration] Act in a matter of consent, not coercion, and the parties are generally free to structure their arbitration agreements as they see fit." (Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University (1989) 489 U.S. 468, 469.)

Here, the arbitration agreement does not expressly incorporate the FAA, and therefore is subject to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, which states in relevant part: On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such controversy, 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 it determines that: (a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or (b) Grounds exist for the revocation of the agreement. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1281.2, subds. (a)-(b).)

The parties' arbitration agreement states in relevant part: Either you or we may choose to have any dispute between you and us decided by arbitration, and not by a court or by jury trial. You give up any right that you may have to participate as a class representative or class member in any class action or class arbitration against us if a dispute is arbitrated. In arbitration, discovery and rights to appeal are generally more limited than in a judicial proceeding, and other rights that you would have in court may not be available.

You or we (including any assignee) may elect to resolve any Claim by neutral, binding arbitration and not by a court action. "Claim" means any claim, dispute or controversy between you and us or our employees, agents, successors, assigns or affiliates arising from or relating to: 1. The credit application; 2. The purchase of the Property; 3. The condition of the Property; 4. This Contract; 5. Any insurance, maintenance, service, or other contracts you purchased in connection with this Contract; or 6.

Any related transaction, occurrence or relationship.... (Motion, Heydari Decl., Exh. 1, p. 6, P. "Arbitration Provision".)

The arbitration provision referenced above broadly applies to Plaintiff's "credit application, purchase of Property, condition of the Property, this Contract...." (Ibid.) Plaintiff's claims arise specifically with respect to Plaintiff's purchase of and the condition of the vehicle purchased pursuant to the Retail Installment Sales Contract. (Compl., P.P.16-39.) The agreement with the arbitration provision is between Plaintiff as Buyer and Defendant Car Search as Seller, and was assigned by Seller on the date of execution to Defendant Westlake, which signed to acknowledge the assignment. (Bull Decl., Exh. 1, p. 9.)

Defendant Westlake is thus the holder of the agreement and the entity to whom Plaintiff has been making payments for the subject vehicle. (Motion, Bull Decl., P.4.) The agreement provides that any holder of the agreement is subject to all claims and defenses that could be asserted against the Seller. Accordingly, Plaintiff has demonstrated the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy that encompasses the claims in this action and binds Defendant Car Search and Defendant Westlake.

The request to compel arbitration is granted. The request for a stay of this action pending arbitration is granted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4.

Next, Plaintiff moves for an order that the parties are to arbitrate before JAMS or the American Arbitration Association, pursuant to the terms of the arbitration agreement. The agreement specifically provides that the party electing arbitration may choose the American Arbitration Association ("AAA"), JAMS, or National Arbitration and Mediation ("NAM"). (Motion, Heydari Decl., Exh. 1, p. 6, P. "Arbitration Provision".) Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff's request to order the arbitration before JAMS, or in the alternative, AAA.

Third, Plaintiff seeks orders confirming that Defendants Cars Search and Westlake are in breach of the arbitration agreement, and that they pay all of Plaintiff's reasonable attorney's fees and costs related to arbitration. These requests are made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.97, which states in relevant part: "...if the fees or costs to initiate an arbitration proceeding are not paid within 30 days after the due date, the drafting party is in material breach of the arbitration agreement, is in default of the arbitration, and waives its right to compel arbitration under Section 1281.2." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1281.97, subd. (a)(1).)

Plaintiff's counsel sent a pre-filing demand letter to Defendants Car Search and Westlake on April 15, 2025. (Id. at P.4 and Exh. 2.) Plaintiff's counsel did not receive a response and filed an arbitration request with JAMS on July 8, 2026. (Id. at P.P.6-7.) The request was accepted ten days later with a request to the parties for payment, which Plaintiff submitted. (Id. at P.8 and Exh. 3.) JAMS sent a Notice of Intent to Initiate on July 23, 2025, again asking for payment, which Defendants again ignored. (Id. at P.9 and Exh. 4.) After JAMS' third request for payment went unanswered by Defendants, it closed the case on or around October 30, 2025. (Id. at P.P.10-11 and Exh. 5.)

Defendants Car Search and Westlake make no showing that their failure to pay resulted from a "good faith mistake, inadvertence, or other excusable neglect." (See Hohenshelt v. Superior Ct. (2025) 18 Cal. 5th 310, 323.) Rather, Defendants' refusal to pay the contractually required fees has resulted in months of unexplained delay, caused the arbitration proceedings to be closed, and required Plaintiff to file, and the Court to decide, this motion. Based on this evidence, the Court finds that Defendants Cars Search and Westlake were in material breach of the arbitration agreement and are in default of the arbitration.

Finally, Plaintiff asks for an order that Defendants Cars Search and Westlake pay all of Plaintiff's reasonable attorney's fees and costs related to arbitration, citing subdivision (b)(2), which allows the consumer to "compel arbitration in which the drafting party shall pay reasonable attorney's fees and costs related to the arbitration." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.1281.97(b)(2).) Plaintiff also seeks an order for Defendants, as the drafting party, to pay Plaintiff's reasonable expenses incurred "as a result of the material breach." (Mot., pp. 2, 11; Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1281.99(a).) Defendants Cas Search and Westlake are each a "drafting party." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1280(e).)

Defendant Cars Search's limited opposition to the instant Motion argues that the arbitration provision provides for how arbitration costs will be handled. (See Motion, Heydari Decl., Exh. 1, p. 6, P. "Arbitration Provision".) But the opposition does not address why Defendants Cars Search and Westlake should not be ordered to pay Plaintiff's fees and costs as provided for in the relevant statutes, given their breach and default. Plaintiffs have established the material breach, as discussed above, and are entitled to an order for payment of their fees and costs as set forth in Sections 1281.97(b)(2) and 1281.99(a). The Court continues the hearing on the amount to be awarded under Section 1281.99(a) as set forth below. The arbitrator may determine the reasonable fees and costs to be awarded under Section 1281.97(b)(2).

Conclusion

Plaintiff Malcolm Bull's Motion to Compel Arbitration, for Court to Pick Arbitration Forum, for an Order Confirming Defendants Car Search USA and Westlake Services, LLC are in Material Breach of the Arbitration Clause, an Order for Fees and Costs Associated with Arbitration, and Request for Stay, is Granted in part and Continued in part, as follows: The request to compel Defendants Car Search USA and Westlake Services, LLC dba Westlake Financial Services to arbitration before JAMS, or in the alternative, the American Arbitration Association, and to stay this action pending arbitration is Granted.

Defendants Car Search USA and Westlake Services, LLC dba Westlake Financial Services are Ordered to arbitration before JAMS, or in the alternative, the American Arbitration Association. The Court Orders this action Stayed pending arbitration, except for the continued hearing set below. The request to find that Defendants Car Search USA and Westlake Services, LLC dba Westlake Financial Services are in breach of the arbitration agreement and are in default of the arbitration is Granted. Defendants Car Search USA and Westlake Services, LLC dba Westlake Financial Services are in material breach of the agreement and in default of arbitration.

The Court Orders Defendants Car Search USA and Westlake Services, LLC dba Westlake Financial Services to pay Plaintiff's reasonable attorney's fees and costs related to arbitration pursuant to Section 1281.97(b)(2), with the amount awarded to be determined by the arbitrator. The Court Orders Defendants Car Search USA and Westlake Services, LLC dba Westlake Financial Services to pay Plaintiff's reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees and costs, incurred as a result of the material breach pursuant to Section 1281.99(a).

The Court Continues the determination of the amount to be awarded under Section 1281.99(a) to 09/22/2026 at 10:00 am in Department 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse. By 08/25/2026, Plaintiff is to file and serve a supplemental declaration not to exceed three (3) pages regarding the award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred as a result of the breach. Defendants may file and serve an opposition no longer than three pages by 09/15/2026. Status Conference Re: Arbitration is set for 02/16/2027 at 9:30 am in Department 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 26STLC01741 Hearing Date: August 18, 2026 Dept: 26 TENTATIVE RULING: Judgment Creditor Jedidiah James Bell's Motion to Compel Responses to Post-Judgment Discovery is granted. Judgment Debtor Ashleigh S. Borbey is to serve verified responses without objections to the Post-Judgment Interrogatories within ten (10) days' notice of this ruling.

Analysis: On March 16, 2026, Plaintiff Jedidiah James Bell ("Judgment Creditor") filed the instant action against Defendant Ashleigh S. Borbey ("Judgment Debtor"). Defendant filed an Answer on March 30, 2026. On April 8, 2026, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case. On June 2, 2026, the Court granted Judgment Creditor's Ex Parte Application for Court Directed Service Via Electronic Mail. (Minute Order, 06/02/26.) Judgment on the parties' stipulation was entered on June 10, 2026. Judgment Creditor filed and electronically served the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Post-Judgment Discovery on July 22, 2026. Judgment Creditor filed a Notice of Non-Opposition on August 8, 2026. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

The Motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 708.030 and 2030.290. Enforcement of judgment laws provide that the judgment creditor may demand that the judgment debtor respond to interrogatories to aid in the enforcement of the money judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 708.020, subd. (a) .) The judgment debtor must respond within 30 days of its service. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 708.020, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.260.)

Judgment Creditor served Judgment Debtor with Post-Judgment Interrogatories on June 17, 2026. (Motion, Bell Decl., Exh. C, p. 4.) Based on service by electronic mail, responses were due by July 21, 2026. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 2030.260, 1010.6, subd. (a)(4)(B).) As of the filing of the instant Motion on July 22, 2026, Judgment Debtor had not served responses or otherwise communicated with Judgment Creditor. (Motion, Bell Decl., P.P.5-6.) Accordingly, Judgment Creditor is entitled to an order compelling Judgment Debtor to serve verified responses without objections to the Post-Judgment Interrogatories.

Conclusion

Judgment Creditor Jedidiah James Bell's Motion to Compel Responses to Post-Judgment Discovery is granted. Judgment Debtor Ashleigh S. Borbey is to serve verified responses without objections to the Post-Judgment Interrogatories within ten