BAILEY vs JAGUAR LAND ROVER OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC., et al.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with

25CV006951: BAILEY vs JAGUAR LAND ROVER OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC., et al. 07/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action in Department 8D

a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE OR GORDON D. SCHABER COURTHOUSE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION.****

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Niello Imports of Rocklin, Inc. dba Land Rover Rocklin’s (erroneously sued as Jaguar Land & Rover Rocklin) (“Defendant”) motion compel arbitration is ruled upon as follows.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith to advise of Local Rule 1.06, the Court’s tentative ruling procedure, and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, moving counsel shall be available at the hearing, in person or remotely, in the event opposing counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

Factual Background

This lemon law action arises from to plaintiff Dwight Bailey’s (“Plaintiff”) purchase of a 2024 Land Rover Range Rover Velar vehicle (“Subject Vehicle”) on or about May 25, 2024. (Compl., ¶ 7.) Plaintiff filed his Complaint on March 25, 2025 asserting causes of action under the Song- Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code, §§ 1790 et seq.) against codefendant Jaguar Land Rover North America LLC (“Jaguar”) and a cause of action for negligent repair and fraudulent concealment against Defendant.

Defendant moves to compel the matter to arbitration of the claim against it and to stay these proceedings based on the arbitration provision contained within the Retail Installment Sale Contract – Simple Finance Charge (With Arbitration Provision) (“Sale Contract”) executed during Plaintiff’s purchase of the Subject Vehicle. (See Lambert Decl., Exh. A.)

Plaintiff opposes.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV006951: BAILEY vs JAGUAR LAND ROVER OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC., et al. 07/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action in Department 8D

Legal Standard

On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy, the court shall order the parties to arbitrate the matter if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, unless it determines that: (a) the right to compel arbitration was waived by the petitioner; (b) grounds exist for the revocation of the agreement; or (c) a party to the arbitration agreement is also a party to a pending court action or special proceeding with a third party, arising out of the same transaction or series of related transactions and there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413.)

Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) is essentially the same:

A written provision in any maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction or an agreement in writing to submit to arbitration an existing controversy shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.

(9 U.S.C. § 2.)

“Under both federal and state law, the threshold question presented by a petition to compel arbitration is whether there is an agreement to arbitrate.” (Sparks v. Vista Del Mar Child and Family Services (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1517.) “Absent a clear agreement to submit disputes to arbitration, courts will not infer that the right to a jury trial has been waived.” (Id. at p. 1518.)

“A party seeking to compel arbitration of a dispute ‘bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement, and the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving any defense, such as unconscionability.’” (Jenks v. DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 1, 8.) Normal principles of contract interpretation apply to the interpretation of contractual arbitration provisions. (Aanderud v. Superior Ct. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 880, 890.) Included among these is the long-accepted rule that ambiguities in an arbitration agreement, as in any other type of contract, must be interpreted against the drafting party. (Victoria v. Super. Ct. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 734, 739, 745–747.)

Discussion

Defendant argues that the arbitration provisions are binding and enforceable, that Plaintiff’s claims are subject to arbitration under California and federal law, that Defendant has not waived arbitration, and that no grounds exist for revocation of the arbitration agreement.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV006951: BAILEY vs JAGUAR LAND ROVER OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC., et al. 07/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action in Department 8D

Plaintiff opposes on procedural and substantive grounds. First, Plaintiff contends that Defendant has waived its right to compel arbitration through actions inconsistent therewith. These actions include Defendant’s engagement with the merits of this action by filing an Answer, filing a Case Management Statement in which it requested a trial date, and filing the present motion nearly a year after the commencement of litigation.

Second, Plaintiff contends that Defendant failed to properly authenticate the purported Sale Contract agreement and thus there is no evidentiary basis on which this Court may order arbitration.

Third, citing Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1122, Plaintiff argues that the warranty repair relationship did not arise from the Sale Contract but instead exists independently thereof. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that the warranty repair relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant exists because Defendant is an authorized repair facility obligated to perform warranty repairs under its separate dealer agreement with codefendant Jaguar. Plaintiff also contends that the negligent repair claim does not relate to the “condition of this vehicle” as set forth in the arbitration clause of the Sale Agreement because such language pertains to the Subject Vehicle’s condition at the time of sale rather than every subsequent incident involving the Subject Vehicle.

Waiver

In determining waiver, the California Supreme Court has held that courts should analyze generally applicable contract law. (Quach v. California Commerce Club, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal. 5th 562, 584.) Specifically, the Quach Court set forth:

To establish waiver under generally applicable contract law, the party opposing enforcement of a contractual agreement must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the waiving party knew of the contractual right and intentionally relinquished or abandoned it. (Lynch, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 475, 219 Cal.Rptr.3d 754, 396 P.3d 1085; see Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1, 31, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 370, 900 P.2d 619 (Waller) [burden is on party claiming waiver “ ‘to prove it by clear and convincing evidence’ ”]; 30 Cal.Jur. 3d, supra, Estoppel and Waiver, § 38.)

Under the clear and convincing evidence standard, the proponent of a fact must show that it is “highly probable” the fact is true. (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 995, 266 Cal.Rptr.3d 329, 470 P.3d 41 (O.B.).) The waiving party’s knowledge of the right may be “actual or constructive.” (Outboard Marine Corp. v. Superior Court (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 30, 41, 124 Cal.Rptr. 852.) Its intentional relinquishment or abandonment of the right may be proved by evidence of words expressing an intent to relinquish the right or of conduct that is so inconsistent with an intent to enforce the contractual

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV006951: BAILEY vs JAGUAR LAND ROVER OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC., et al. 07/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action in Department 8D

right as to lead a reasonable fact finder to conclude that the party had abandoned it. (Lynch, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 475, 219 Cal.Rptr.3d 754, 396 P.3d 1085.)

(Ibid.) However, prejudice is no longer a consideration under the FAA or California law. (Id. at pp. 579-580.)

Here, Defendant filed the present motion within a year of filing its Answer, wherein its Fifteenth Affirmative Defense invokes the arbitration agreement between the parties. (Defendant’s Answer, ¶ 15.) In its Case Management Statement filed jointly with codefendant Jaguar on April 27, 2026, Defendant also specifically mentions its intent to file the present motion based on its belief that arbitration is the proper forum. As such, the Answer and Case Management Statement do not evidence an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of arbitration. Other than its Answer and its Case Management Statement, Plaintiff points to no other affirmative litigation conduct showing Defendant acted inconsistently with its intent to arbitrate. Furthermore, no trial date has been set in this matter.

Based on the facts before it, Plaintiff has not carried his burden to demonstrate that Defendant has waived the right to arbitrate. The Court does not find waiver.

Evidence of Arbitration Agreement

“The burden of persuasion is always on the moving party to prove the existence of an arbitration agreement with the opposing party by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 164-165.) “However, the burden of production may shift in a three-step process.” (Id. at p. 165.) The moving party meets the initial burden by attaching to the moving papers a copy of the alleged arbitration agreement or setting forth its terms verbatim. (Ibid..; Cal.

Rules of Court, Rule 3.1330.) “For this step, ‘it is not necessary to follow the normal procedures of document authentication.’” (Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th 158 at p. 165.) Once the moving party meets its initial prima facie burden, the opposing party bears the burden of producing evidence to challenge the authenticity of the agreement. (Ibid.) If the opposing party meets its burden, the moving party must then offer admissible evidence to demonstrate the arbitration agreement is valid. (Ibid.)

Here, Defendant contends that Plaintiff entered into the Sale Contract on or about May 25, 2024, which contains the following arbitration provision:

[a]ny claim or dispute, whether in contract, tort, statute or otherwise between you and us or our employees, agents, successors or assigns, which arises out of or relates to your credit application, purchase or condition of this Vehicle, this contract or any resulting transaction or relationship shall, at your or our election, be resolved by neutral, binding arbitration and not by court action.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV006951: BAILEY vs JAGUAR LAND ROVER OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC., et al. 07/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action in Department 8D

(See Lambert Decl., Exh. A, p. 5.) In support of the motion to compel arbitration, Defendant has presented a copy of the Sale Contract signed by Plaintiff and Defendant. As Exhibit A to the declaration of Sarah Carlson Lambert. (Ibid.) Despite Plaintiff’s argument to the contrary, it is not necessary for Defendant to follow normal procedures of document authentication to meet its initial burden of proving the existent of an alleged arbitration existence; rather, as stated above, such initial burden is met by attaching to the moving papers a copy of the alleged arbitration agreement or setting forth its terms verbatim. (Gamboa v.

Northeast Community Clinic, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 165; Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1330.) The Court therefore finds the copy of the Sale Contract attached to Defendant’s counsel’s declaration sufficient to meet Defendant’s initial burden, such that the burden shifts to Plaintiff to challenge the authenticity of the Sale Contract through admissible evidence.

While Plaintiff raises his objection to the Sale Contract in his opposition, Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence to show that he did not sign the Sale Contract or otherwise assent to the arbitration provision contained therein.

Thus, the Court finds Defendant has carried its ultimate burden of producing evidence showing that Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate.

Application of Arbitration Agreement

Like any other contract, an arbitration agreement is construed to give effect to the intent of the parties. (Aanderud v. Superior Ct., supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 890.) Courts have held that the language “arising out of or relating to” shows an intent for a broad arbitration provision that “reaches every dispute between the parties having a significant relationship to the contract and all disputes having their origin or genesis in the contract.” (Brinkley v. Monterey Financial Services, Inc. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 314, 331–332.)

In this case, the arbitration provision in the Sale Contract applies to “[a]ny claim or dispute, whether in contract, tort, statute or otherwise which arises out of or relates to your credit application, purchase or condition of this Vehicle ” (See Lambert Decl., Exh. A, p. 5 (emphasis added).) Plaintiff’s claims may arise out of statute, but the arbitration agreement expressly covers such claims. Further, Plaintiff’s cause of action against Defendant for “negligent repair” arise out of or relate to the purchase of the Subject Vehicle and the condition of the Subject Vehicle.

Plaintiff argues that its claims are outside the scope of the arbitration provision because they arise from statute, not the contractual provisions in the Sale Contract, and that under California law, a manufacturer’s warranties are independent of the sales contract. In so arguing, Plaintiff relies exclusively on Ford Motor Warranty Cases, supra, 17 Cal.5th 1122, which concerns the situation where the manufacturer is not a party to a retail sales contract but

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV006951: BAILEY vs JAGUAR LAND ROVER OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC., et al. 07/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action in Department 8D

wishes to benefit as a third party. However, in the case at bar, Defendant is the retailer—not the manufacturer—and is a direct party under the Sale Contract. The Court is also not persuaded by Plaintiff’s argument that his claims do not relate to the “condition of this Vehicle” at the time of sale, particularly considering Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant concealed engine defects present in the Subject Vehicle at the time of sale. (See Compl., ¶ 59.) Finally, as set forth above, whether the cause of action sounds in tort, contract, or statute, the plain language of the arbitration agreement covers it.

Based on the foregoing, the Sale Contract’s broad arbitration provision encompasses Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant.

Disposition

Defendant’s motion to compel binding arbitration is GRANTED. The arbitration shall be conducted pursuant to the arbitration provision in the Sale Contract.

This case against the moving Defendant is STAYED pending completion of arbitration.

The Court notes that it appears that Defendant seeks for the entire action to be stayed, including causes of action against co-defendant. Defendant, however, fails to cite supporting authority for such a position. As an initial matter, Defendant appears to assert that the FAA’s procedural laws apply and that section 1281.2(c) does not apply. (See Mem. of Points and Auth. at pp. 13-14 [“Because the Federal Arbitration Act contains no provision analogous to section 1281.2, subdivision (c), that subdivision cannot be applied to deny the enforcement of arbitration clauses governed by the FAA”]; Reply at pp. 9-10.)

While California procedural rules allow for the potential to stay all claims, including against co-defendants, where there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact, the FAA does not contain such provisions. (Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2; see Volt Info. Scis., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S. 468, 476 n.5 [“the FAA itself contains no provision designed to deal with the special practical problems that arise in multiparty contractual disputes when some or all of the contracts at issue include agreements to arbitrate.

California has taken the lead in fashioning a legislative response to this problem, by giving courts authority to consolidate or stay arbitration proceedings in these situations in order to minimize the potential for contradictory judgments.”]; see also The Rutter Group: Cal. Prac. Guide Alt. Disp. Res. Ch. 5-B, § 5:49.15 [“When one of the parties to an arbitration agreement is involved in litigation with a third party arising out of the same transaction, CCP § 1281.2(c) allows a court to refuse to enforce the arbitration provision or stay arbitration pending the outcome of the related litigation (see ¶ 5:327).

The FAA contains no such provision and would require the arbitration to proceed (see 9 U.S.C. §§ 3, 4).”].)

Further, even if Defendant now seeks to apply section 1281.2(c), Defendant has provided no analysis regarding why the section applies in this case.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV006951: BAILEY vs JAGUAR LAND ROVER OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC., et al. 07/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action in Department 8D

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)