CLARK vs ADAMS AUTO SALES INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al.

26CV011604: CLARK vs ADAMS AUTO SALES INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 16D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure: To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 16D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-3056 by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message (a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; (b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and (c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below.

If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court. Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16146506749 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED. Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts.

Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000. A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided. *** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G.

CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA

26CV011604: CLARK vs ADAMS AUTO SALES INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 16D

95814. ALL HEARINGS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Westlake Services, LLC’s (“WSL”) motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff Clark’s causes of action and to stay these judicial proceedings pending completion of such arbitration is UNOPPOSED and is GRANTED, as follows.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact all counsel and advise them of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact all counsel prior to the hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing in person, by Zoom or by telephone.

The proof of service attached to the moving papers fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure §1013a, requiring the “exact title” of each document being served.

Factual Background

This action arises out of plaintiff Clark’s purchase of a used vehicle allegedly sold despite serious mechanical defects contrary to the representations about the vehicle’s good operating condition.

Defendant WSL now moves to compel arbitration of plaintiff Clark’s claims in this case pursuant to an arbitration provision in the “Conditional Sales Contract and Security Agreement” (“Agreement”) plaintiff executed in connection with her purchase of the subject vehicle and to stay all judicial proceedings pending completion of such arbitration. This motion is brought pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), Title 9 U.S.C. §1 et seq. as well as Code of Civil Procedure §1281.2 et seq.

The Court finds on file no opposition or other written objection to the present motion, which is construed as a concession on the merits of this motion. (See, e.g., D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n.4.)

Relevant Legal Principles

Under California law, arbitration must be compelled where there is a valid, binding arbitration agreement unless the opposing party proves the agreement is unenforceable on unconscionability or other grounds. (See, e.g., Armendariz v. Foundation Health

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV011604: CLARK vs ADAMS AUTO SALES INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 16D

(2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 96-100, 114; Gatton v. T-Mobile USA (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 571, 579.) In fact, Code of Civil Procedure §1281.2 specifically provides in pertinent 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. (Underline added for emphasis.)

Section 2 of the FAA is essentially the same:

A written provision in any contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction or an agreement in writing to submit to arbitration an existing controversy shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. (Underline added for emphasis.)

California has a public policy which encourages arbitrations and arbitration clauses have been repeatedly enforced. (See, e.g., Moncharsh v. Heily & Blasé (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 9 [the California Supreme Court stated this state has a “strong public policy in favor of arbitration as a speedy and relatively inexpensive means of dispute resolution”]; Madden v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1976) 17 Cal.3d 699, 707 [California’s statutory scheme “evidence[s] a strong public policy in favor of arbitrations [as a] favored method of resolving disputes”]; Gross v. Recabaren (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 771, 775; Berman v. Dean Witter Co. (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 999, 1003; Greenfield v. Mosley (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 735, 744.)

“Under both federal and state law, the threshold question presented by a petition to compel arbitration is whether there is an agreement to arbitrate.” (Sparks v. Del Mar Child and Family Svcs. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1517.) “In a petition to compel arbitration, the party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence. [Citation.] The party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense, including that an arbitration provision is invalid or otherwise not enforceable.” (Brinkley v. Monterey Financial Servs., Inc. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 314, 325.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV011604: CLARK vs ADAMS AUTO SALES INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 16D

Nonsignatories generally may not compel contractual arbitration. (See, e.g., JSM Tuscany, LLC v. Superior Court (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1222, 1236-1237.) However, there are clear exceptions where arbitration agreements may be enforced by a nonsignatory but a non-party must show some basis for extending the agreement to them. (See, e.g., Westlye v. Look Sports, Inc. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1715, 1728.) Further, according to binding precedent from the Third District Court of Appeal, there are at least six (6) different theories by which a non-signatory may be bound to arbitrate: (1) Incorporation by reference; (2) assumption; (3) agency; (4) veil-piercing or alter ego; (5) estoppel; and (6) third-party beneficiary. (Philadelphia Indemnity Ins.

Co. v. SMG Holdings, Inc. (2019) 44 Cal.App.5th 834, 840-841 (citing Suh v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1504, 1513).) A “third party” non-signatory may enforce an arbitration agreement through the grounds available under state law, such as agency, alter ego, or intended benefit. (See, e.g., Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle (2009) 556 U.S. 624, 631.) Under California law, a nonsignatory may seek to enforce an arbitration agreement based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel. (See, e.g., Molecular Analytical Systems v.

Ciphergen Biosystems, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 696 [claims asserted against nonsignatory “intimately intertwined” with contract containing arbitration clause].) Whether a nonsignatory may ultimately be entitled to enforce an arbitration agreement “is a question of state law.” (Ochoa v. Ford Motor Company (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1324, 1332.)

Discussion

As noted above, defendant WSL seeks pursuant to the FAA and Code of Civil Procedure §1281.2 et seq. an order compelling arbitration of plaintiff Clark’s claims in this action pursuant to the arbitration provision in the Agreement plaintiff executed in connection with her purchase of the subject vehicle, along with a stay of all judicial proceedings pending completion of such arbitration.

Construing the lack of opposition or other written objection to the present motion as a concession on the merits of this motion (see, e.g., D.I. Chadbourne, Inc., supra, 60 Cal.2d at 728, n.4), this Court will grant the present motion to compel as unopposed.

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, the present motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED and all judicial proceedings in this action are hereby STAYED pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1281.4 pending completion of arbitration.

Moving defendant to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) court days.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV011604: CLARK vs ADAMS AUTO SALES INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 16D

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)