United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION AND STAY ACTION
T. BENITEZ, JUDGE
25, 2019, Defendant BMW of North America, LLC filed a Motion
to Compel Arbitration and stay all proceedings. Upon review
of the moving papers, the Court finds this matter fully
briefed and suitable for resolution without oral argument.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court
GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration and Stay Action.
about March 10, 2016, Plaintiff Gavin Lanning
("Plaintiff) purchased a 2014 BMW X5 sDrive 35i, vehicle
identification number 5UXKR2C55EOH33008, (Vehicle) from BMW
Encinitas (hereinafter "Dealer") which was
manufactured and or distributed by Defendant. (Doc. No. 1
¶ 4.) The Purchase Contract (Contract) utilized to
complete the sale consisted of a 7-page document titled
"BMW Financial Services -Motor Vehicle Retail
Installment Contract-California." (Doc. No. 1-1, Exh.
E.) Plaintiff signed the Contract, which included an
arbitration clause, on March 10, 2016. (Id. at 7.)
Plaintiff alleges that, in connection with the purchase, he
received the express written warranty of the manufacturer in
that the written statement accompanied the product. See
Id. ¶¶ 5-7. Thereafter, Plaintiff apparently
experienced problems with the Vehicle.
alleges that the Defendant "failed to conform the
vehicle to their express warranty within a reasonable number
of attempts or within 30 days," Id.
¶¶ 14-17, As a result, Plaintiff filed this
"lemon law" action against the Defendant in the San
Diego Superior Court alleging the following causes of action:
(1) Violation of Subdivision (D) of Civil Code Section
1793.2; (2) Violation of Subdivision (B) of Civil Code
Section 1793.2; (3) Violation of Civil Code Section
1793.2(a)(3); (4) Breach of Express Written Warranty; (5)
Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability; and (6)
Violation of the Federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
(See Doc. No. 1-3.) The suit was subsequently
removed on April 26, 2019. (Doc. No. 1.)
before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration and to Stay Action. (Doc. No. 19.) On August 8,
2019, Plaintiff filed his opposition. (Doc. No. 20.) On
August 15, 2019, Defendant filed its reply. (Doc. No. 21.)
Motion to Compel Arbitration.
the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C.
§ 1 et seq., arbitration agreements "shall
be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such
grounds that exist at law or in equity for the revocation of
a contract." 9 U.S.C. § 2. "Once the court has
determined that an arbitration agreement relates to a
transaction involving interstate commerce, thereby falling
under the FAA, the court's only role is to determine
whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and whether the
scope of the dispute falls within that agreement."
Ramirez v. Cintas Corp., No. C 04-00281 JSW, 2005 WL
2894628, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2005) (citing 9 U.S.C.
§ 4; Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys.,
Inc., 207 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000)).
Request for Judicial Notice.
district court may take notice of facts not subject to
reasonable dispute that are "capable of accurate and
ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy
cannot reasonably be questioned." Fed.R.Evid. 201(b);
United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333
(9th Cir. 1993). "[A] court may take judicial notice of
'matters of public record, "' Lee, 250
F.3d at 689 (citing Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distrib.,
798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986)), and may also consider
"documents whose contents are alleged in a complaint and
whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not
physically attached to the pleading." Branch v.
Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled on
other grounds by Galbraith v. Cnty. of Santa Clara,
307 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir, 2002). The court need not accept as
true allegations that contradict facts which may be
judicially noticed. See Mullis v. United States
Bankruptcy Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1987).
Request for Judicial Notice.
preliminary matter, Defendant asks that the Court take
judicial notice of the original Purchase Contract. The
Plaintiff did not object to the request for judicial notice,
The Contract is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Dixon
Declaration, rendering it a true and correct copy of a court
record, which is subject to judicial notice. United
States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).
the Court GRANTS Defendant's request for judicial notice.
Plaintiff's Claims Against Defendant are ...