Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lanning v. BMW of North America, LLC

United States District Court, S.D. California

November 5, 2019

GAVIN LANNING, Plaintiff,
v.
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC; and DOES 1 to 10, Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY ACTION

          ROGER T. BENITEZ, JUDGE

         On July 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.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On or 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.

         Plaintiff 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.)

         Presently 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.)

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         A. Motion to Compel Arbitration.

         Under 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)).

         B. Request for Judicial Notice.

         A 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).

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Request for Judicial Notice.

         As a 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).

         Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant's request for judicial notice.

         B. Plaintiff's Claims Against Defendant are ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.