Ford Motor Credit Company LLC vs. The Bros of Hope Corporation

Defendant is ORDERED to file the amended answer within 2 days.

Defendant to give notice.

5 Ford Motor Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings Credit Defendant Cyrille Tarla’s unopposed Motion to Compel Company LLC Arbitration and Stay Proceedings is GRANTED. vs. The Bros of Hope The Retail Installment Sales Contract includes an Corporation arbitration provision which covers the claims asserted in 30-2025- the Complaint. (Tarla Decl., Ex. A [“Any claim or dispute ... 01507775-CU- which arises out of or relates to your credit application, BC-CJC purchase or condition of this Vehicle ... shall at your or out election, be resolved by neutral, binding arbitration ...”].)

The matter is STAYED pending arbitration.

Arbitration Status Review set for 5/27/2027 at 1:30 PM. The parties are ORDERED to file a Joint Status Report 5 days prior.

Clerk to give notice.

6 Cardona vs. Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings Maruchan Defendant Priority Business Services, Inc.’s Motion to 30-2025- Compel Arbitration and Stay Action is GRANTED. 01525470-CU- WT-CJC Defendant’s objections to the declaration of Plaintiff are OVERRULED.

The Court will consider Defendant’s new declaration filed in reply to the extent the declaration responds to an issue raised in opposition – whether Plaintiff executed a Spanish- language version of the arbitration agreement.

Defendant asserts that as part of Plaintiff’s hiring process, she electronically signed an arbitration agreement.

Plaintiff does not dispute executing the agreement. She opposes the motion on the grounds that (1) the agreement does not identify the “Company” and was not signed by an employee of Defendant, (2) the agreement is unconscionable because it was part of a click-through onboarding screen which did not provide Plaintiff, a Spanish speaker, a Spanish explanation of its contents, and (3) the agreement states it is subject to “controlling law” including the California Arbitration Act without expressly providing for the requirements of Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24