LICHY V LARSSON

(Van Nuys Courthouse East: Dept. T) August 19, 2026 DEPARTMENT T LAW AND MOTION RULINGS If ALL parties submit on the tentative, then no appearance is necessary unless some other matter (i.e., Case Management Conference) is on calendar. It is not necessary to call the court to request oral argument. Oral argument is permitted on all tentative rulings.

24VECV02712 TOVAR V FCA Motion to enforce settlement: Grant. The court orders that judgment be entered in favor of plaintiff Jose Luis Tovar and against defendant FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company in the sum of $99,000 plus prejudgment interest from 8/4/2025 through 8/19/2026 as follows: $9,900 div. by 365 = $27.12 per day x 380 days = $10,305.60 Total judgment is $109,305.60.

Case Number: 25VECV05808 Hearing Date: August 19, 2026 Dept: T 25VECV05808 LICHY V LARSSON The court will sign the order but will change the order to read that the production of documents is due no later than 20 days after the Arizona subpoena is served on the deponent. This is a reminder that you have a mediation cutoff date of 2 months before trial and you are to file a Joint Post Mediation Report no later than 10/9/2026. See, the Pathways order.

Case Number: 26VECV01762 Hearing Date: August 19, 2026 Dept: T 26VECV01762 Gamliel v Mercedes The defendant's motion to compel arbitration is granted as to plaintiffs Itay Gamliel and Reality Development, Inc. The entire action is stayed pending arbitration. The court sets an Arbitration Status Conference on _____ at 8:30 a.m. Appearance is mandatory unless the case has been dismissed or judgment has been entered.

Discussion

Defendant moved to compel arbitration based upon the arbitration provision found in the Motor Vehicle Lease Agreement (Lease) entered between Plaintiff and Non-Party/Lessor Mercedes Benz Encino (MB Encino) entered on October 2, 2024. (Sybil Leung Decl., Exh. 1.)

With the submission of the Lease, Defendant met their initial burden to show the existence of an arbitration agreement. The burden shifted to Plaintiff to show by a preponderance of evidence that the arbitration agreement is unenforceable. Plaintiff did not submit a declaration to dispute entry into the Lease. Because Plaintiff did not submit evidence to dispute entry into the Lease, the Lease's arbitration agreement, as an initial matter, is seen to be enforceable.

Defendant argued that they have standing to enforce the arbitration agreement as a third-party beneficiary. When reviewing third party beneficiary doctrine, it must be shown that the contracting parties intended to benefit a third-party beneficiary by applying a "three-part test": (1) "the third party would in fact benefit from the contract"; (2) "a motivating purpose of the contracting parties was to provide a benefit to the third party"; and (3) permitting the third party to enforce the contract "is consistent with the objectives of the contract and the reasonable expectations of the contracting parties." (Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC (2019) 6 Cal.5th 817, 830 (Goonewardene).) All three elements must be satisfied to permit the third-party action to go forward. (Id.)

The Court finds that the arbitration agreement in the Lease directly benefited Defendant because Defendant is expressly named as a third-party that can enforce the arbitration agreement. Further, the fact that Defendant is expressly named in the arbitration agreement shows that