DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CVPS2507164·riverside·Probate·Consumer Protection
Hearing 3 months agoGRANTED

WELSH VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.

DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL JOINDER OF INDISPENSABLE PARTY H.E. ROSSIN-WELSH PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 389

Hearing date
May 21, 2026
Department
PS2
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffWelsh
DefendantVolkswagen Group of America, Inc.
OtherHallie Emily Rossin-Welsh

Ruling

testimony that Plaintiff worked for MRHC and that MRHC and Marriott’s Desert Springs Development Corporation are affiliates, permits Defendant to move to compel arbitration based on the Agreement Plaintiff signed. Furthermore, the Agreement explicitly applies to claims arising out of Plaintiff’s employment including disputes against the Company’s “officers, directors, supervisors, managers, employees, or agents in their capacity as such or otherwise.” (Shipp Decl. Ex. A. 2.)

Plaintiff does not dispute signing the agreement or argue that the agreement is not enforceable or otherwise unconscionable. GRANTED

4. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION TO WELSH VS VOLKSWAGEN COMPEL JOINDER OF

GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. INDISPENSABLE PARTY H.E. ROSSIN- WELSH PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 389 Tentative Ruling: Granted.

No opposition filed.

After full consideration of the moving papers and arguments of counsel and all other matters presented to the Court, the Court orders as follows:

VWGoA’s Motion to Compel Joinder of Hallie Emily Rossin-Welsh Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 389 is granted.

Moving party to provide notice pursuant to CCP 1019.5.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share