Vargas v. Sai Monrovia B, Inc. CA2/1

Filed 11/19/15 Vargas v. Sai Monrovia B, Inc. CA2/1 Opinion on remand NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

JORGE A. VARGAS et al., B237257

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC452879) v.

SAI MONROVIA B, INC., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Richard E. Rico, Judge. Affirmed Rosner, Barry & Babbitt, Hallen D. Rosner, Christopher P. Barry and Angela J. Smith for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Arent Fox, Aaron H. Jacoby, Christian J. Scali, Victor P. Danhi; The Scali Law Firm and Christian J. Scali for Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiffs Jorge Vargas and Guadalupe Carcamo filed a putative class action against SAI Monrovia B, Inc., doing business as Assael BMW Mini of Monrovia (Assael), BMW of North America, LLC (BMW), and JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (erroneously sued as Chase Auto Finance Corporation) (Chase), alleging violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Civ. Code, §§ 1750–1784), the Automobile Sales Finance Act (Civ. Code, §§ 2981–2984.6), the California Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17200–17210), the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song- Beverly Act) (Civ. Code, §§ 1790–1795.8), and the California Tire Recycling Act (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 42860–42895). The trial court granted a motion to compel arbitration filed by Assael and Chase, except with respect to a Song-Beverly Act cause of action that was asserted against BMW, which was not a party to the contract of sale that mandated arbitration. The court also granted Assael’s motion to strike the class allegations in the complaint. Plaintiffs appealed. In a published opinion, we reversed on the ground the arbitration provision was unconscionable. (Vargas v. SAI Monrovia B, Inc. (June 4, 2013, B237257) (prior opinion).) The California Supreme Court granted review. After the Supreme Court filed its decision in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Company, LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 899 (Sanchez), in which this court addressed an identical contract form containing an identical arbitration provision in the automobile purchase context, it returned this case with directions to vacate and reconsider in light of Sanchez. We now do so, and affirm the trial court’s orders because, under Sanchez, the arbitration provision is not unconscionable. Moreover, the class action waiver provision in the arbitration provision is enforceable. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s orders. BACKGROUND In 2008 plaintiffs purchased a new Mini Cooper from Assael. Assael utilized a single-page form contract that contained an arbitration provision on the back side. Plaintiffs initialed and signed the front side of the contract, near a provision stating, “You agree to the terms of this contract. You confirm that before you signed this contract, we