Carranza v. Mass Automotive Group CA2/1

Filed 2/20/25 Carranza v. Mass Automotive Group CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

LUIS CARRANZA, JR., B339578

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 22STCV06947) v.

MASS AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, LLC,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Rupert A. Byrdsong, Judge. Affirmed. Luis Carranza Jr., in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent. _______________________________

BACKGROUND Plaintiff Luis Carranza Jr., a self-represented litigant, appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendant Mass Automotive Group, LLC dba Nissan of Mission Hills. The complaint Carranza filed is not in the appellate record he designated. From his appellate brief and other documents in the record, we gather that this action concerns his purchase of a vehicle from Nissan of Mission Hills. We cannot provide a statement of the facts because the limited record does not include documents describing the facts and circumstances of the vehicle purchase. As to the procedural history of the case, the record shows that on December 28, 2022, the trial court granted Nissan of Mission Hills’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending completion of the arbitration. The appellate record, however, does not include the motion to compel arbitration, the alleged vehicle sales contract, or any arbitration agreement. Carranza’s opposition to the motion, which is in the record before us, states that the sales contract presented by Nissan of Mission Hills was “fraudulent” and could not “be used” to compel arbitration. According to the trial court’s case register, which is part of the appellate record, after the arbitration, Nissan of Mission Hills filed a petition to confirm the arbitration award, and Carranza filed a motion “to vacate or alter” the arbitration award. Neither the petition, the motion, nor the arbitration award is part of the appellate record. On February 21, 2024, the court issued a minute order denying, as untimely, Carranza’s motion to vacate or alter the arbitration award. The record before us does not include a ruling on the petition to confirm the arbitration award.