Premier Liberty Development v. Nguyen

hyperlink. (101 Cal.App.5th at p. 1290.) Relying on Massage Envy, the Herzog court explained: “here, the G6 App launch was a transaction separate from the transactions the user had already completed in order to acquire the Dexcom G6. Users would have no reason to anticipate encountering during the app launch new contractual terms governing their use of the Dexcom G6, a device they had already acquired with their medical provider's prescription.” (Id. at p. 1300.)

Here, the enrollment in Bluelink services was a separate transaction from the purchase of the vehicle and Plaintiff’s acquisition of an express warranty. Consumers would have no reason to anticipate that the CSA to which they agree would govern their claims regarding the vehicle in general, including warranty claims, when they had already acquired the express warranty in a separate transaction. Further, nothing about the screen presented to consumers upon enrollment in Bluelink services would give consumers reasonable notice that the CSA Terms & Conditions would apply to the vehicle as a whole rather than only to the Bluelink services.

In light of all the above, Defendant has failed to show that Plaintiff’s causes of action related to nonconformities and electrical defects in the subject vehicle fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement in the CSA or that Plaintiff assented to the agreement to arbitrate. Thus, the Motion to Compel Arbitration is DENIED.

Defendant’s unopposed Request for Judicial Notice of the Complaint in this action is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452(d).)

Defendant to give notice.

111 Premier Liberty MOTION FOR SUMMARY Development v. JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION – The Court will not Nguyen, 2018- issue a tentative on this motion. Additionally, the 01008782 parties are advised that the Court has not yet issued an order on Premier’s motion for summary judgment, the hearing on which was held August 24.