ROBERT F. EBEL; ET AL. vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY; ET AL.

Defendant PRICE SIMMS FORD, LLC - FORD LINCOLN FAIRFIELD (“FORD FAIRFIELD”) moves to compel arbitration of the sole cause of action against it within Plaintiffs ROBERT F. EVEL and JOANNE E. EBEL’s complaint, namely the fifth cause of action, for negligent repair. Summarized as relevant, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that FORD FAIRFIELD negligently stored, prepared, and/or repaired Plaintiffs’ 2021 Ford Mustang Mach-E (the “Vehicle”).

The court has not received opposition to the motion. Notice of Tentative Ruling. FORD FAIRFIELD’s notice of motion does not advise the recipient that the Solano County Superior Court uses a tentative ruling system, as is required under Local Rule 3.9, subdivision (d). FORD FAIRFIELD is cautioned to observe local rules going forward.

Legal Standard. A party to an arbitration agreement may petition the court to compel arbitration if it alleges the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party to the agreement refuses to arbitrate. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) In ruling on a petition to compel arbitration, the trial court shall order parties to arbitrate if it determines that a valid agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists and the dispute between the parties falls within the scope of the agreement. (Luxor Cabs, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 970, 977 (Luxor Cabs).) Arbitration should be compelled unless it can be said with assurance that the arbitration clause in question is not susceptible to an interpretation covering the asserted dispute. (EFund Capital Partners v. Pless (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1311, 1320- 1321.) The party seeking arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence, and the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any defense. (Ibid.)

FORD FAIRFIELD presents evidence that an arbitration agreement exists between it and Plaintiffs as part of the retail sales installment contract by which Plaintiffs obtained the Vehicle from FORD FAIRFIELD. (Declaration of Trina M. Clayton in Support of M otion to Compel Arbitration at ¶ 2, Exhibit A.) The agreement covers “[a]ny claim or dispute...between you [Plaintiffs] and us [FORD FAIRFIELD]...which arises out of or relates to your credit application, purchase or condition of this vehicle, this contract or any resulting transaction or relationship.” (Ibid.)

The arbitration agreement covers Plaintiffs’ cause of action against FORD FAIRFIELD. Plaintiffs allege negligent repair against FORD FAIRFIELD: that they took the Vehicle to FORD FAIRFIELD for repairs, but FORD FAIRFIELD did not properly store, prepare, and/or repair the Vehicle. (Complaint at ¶¶ 47-50.) The sales contract indicates that Plaintiffs purchased a Ford service plan for the Vehicle. Plaintiffs’ complaint further alleges that they took the Vehicle to one of Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY’s authorized representatives for repair. (Complaint at, e.g., ¶¶ 28, 34.) The delivery of the Vehicle to FORD FAIRFIELD for repair therefore appears to be a transaction resulting from the sales contract. On the evidence before the court, it cannot be said with assurance that the arbitration agreement is not susceptible to being interpreted to cover the relevant cause of action.

Plaintiffs have filed no opposition and so raise no defense to arbitration.

Conclusion. FORD FAIRFIELD’s unopposed motion to compel arbitration is granted. Plaintiffs’ complaint as regards FORD FAIRFIELD is ordered stayed pending completion of arbitration.