Melchor vs. Kia America, Inc.

32

the scope of an arbitration clause “turns on whether the . . . claims are ‘rooted’ in the contractual relationship between the parties . . .” (Ahern v. Asset Management Consultants, Inc. (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 675, 692 [citation omitted].) “[E]ven under a very broad arbitration provision, such as ‘any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this agreement,’ claims ‘must have their roots in the relationship between the parties which was created by the contract’ before they can be deemed to fall within the scope of the arbitration provision.” (Rice v. Downs (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 175, 188 [citations omitted].)

The CSA governs the provision of the wireless technology and services received as part of the enrollment in a Bluelink Connected Services subscription. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges the vehicle contained defective components and that HMA installed remanufactured and/or reconditioned components that were not of the same quality as the original equipment manufacturer components. (Compl. ¶ 38.) Plaintiff further alleges Defendant installed components which it knew were defective and would not correct the mechanical issues exhibited in the vehicle. (Compl. ¶ 38.)

As such, the Connected Services are not at issue in this action, and Plaintiff’s claims do not arise out of nor have their roots in the relationship created by the CSA. As such, the arbitration agreement in the CSA does not encompass Plaintiff’s claims.

Tentative Ruling: The Court DENIES Defendant Hyundai Motor America’s motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff to give notice.

13 Melchor vs. Kia America, Inc.

2025-01493559 1. Demurrer to Complaint 2. Case Management Conference

The Demurrer was filed on 11/12/25 and Plaintiff’s opposition was filed on 5/19/26. As of 5/27/26, Defendant has not filed its reply brief, which was due on 5/22/26. Therefore, it is unclear whether Defendant is maintaining the motion.

No later than 6/5/26, counsel for the parties are ordered to meet and confer via telephone or videoconference regarding whether this motion should remain on calendar. No later than 6/8/26, counsel for Defendant shall file and serve a status update, not to exceed two pages, describing the parties’ meet and confer attempts and stating whether the motion should remain on calendar. The parties are encouraged to resolve this issue informally if possible.