Motion to Compel Arbitration
TENTATIVE RULINGS
DEPARTMENT N17
Judge Craig L. Griffin
Date: July 27, 2026 Time: 2:00 PM
If you are submitting to the tentative, please call the Clerk at (657) 622-5617.
Appearances may be IN PERSON or through ZOOM. If appearing by ZOOM, go to https://www.occourts.org/media-relations/civil.html and click on the yellow box that reads: “CLICK HERE TO APPEAR FOR THE ONLINE CHECK-IN/ZOOM PILOT PROGRAM.” Call the department with any questions.
COURT REPORTERS: Official Court Reporters (i.e. Court Reporters employed by the Court) are NOT typically provided for law and motion matters in this department. If a party desires a record of a law and motion proceeding, it will be the party’s responsibility to provide a court reporter. Parties must comply with the Court’s policy on the use of privately retained court reporters which can be found at:
• Civil Court Reporter Pooling; and
• For additional information, please see the Court’s website at Court Reporter Interpreter Services for additional information regarding the availability of Court Reporters.
PUBLIC ACCESS: The public may attend the ZOOM session by telephone. Call the department for a call-in number.
# 1 Melendez v. The Motion to Compel Arbitration, filed on 5/6/26 by Defendant FCA FCA US, LLC US, LLC (“FCA”) is GRANTED.
FCA here has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a written agreement to arbitrate exists, and has provided a copy, in compliance with C.C.P. § 1281.2 and C.R.C. 3.1330. (Stock Decl., ¶¶ 2-4 and Ex. B.)
Plaintiff Luis Cahuantzi Melendez (“Plaintiff”) argues that the arbitration agreement (the “Agreement”) is not properly authenticated. But for purposes of a petition to compel arbitration, it is not necessary to follow the normal procedures of document authentication: it is enough for the petitioner to attach a copy or set forth its provisions in the petition itself. (Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218-219.) Plaintiff has offered no evidence to dispute that he indeed signed the Agreement.
The Agreement on its face encompasses this dispute. (ROA 19, Ex. B; ROA 20, Ex. B [“any dispute arising out of or relating to any aspect of the relationship between you and FCA” will be decided by a single arbitration before the AAA].)
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Plaintiff argues that the Agreement is unenforceable, as it is unconscionable. To show that the Agreement is unenforceable due to unconscionability, Plaintiff must show both procedural and substantive unconscionability, although both elements need not be present in the same degree. (Carbajal v. CWPSC, Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 227, 242; Gatton v. T–Mobile USA, Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 571, 579.) Here, even if there is some procedural unconscionability based on the adhesive nature of the Agreement, it is a separate document clearly labeled as an arbitration agreement and it expressly includes an opt-out provision. (Stock Decl., Ex. B, ¶ 7.) There is thus only a minimal showing of procedural unconscionability here. Plaintiff therefore must show a high degree of substantive unconscionability to prevail on his argument.
Plaintiff argues that there is a lack of mutuality, as the Agreement would effectively apply only to claims that would be made by a buyer, while FCA is not even a signator. But a writing memorializing an arbitration agreement need not be signed by both parties to be binding: it is the presence or absence of evidence of an agreement to arbitrate which matters. (Serafin v. Balco Properties Ltd., LLC (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 165, 176.) Here, the Agreement states that both Plaintiff and FCA are to be bound, and the Agreement was presented to Plaintiff by what was evidently an authorized FCA dealer acting on FCA’s behalf.
FCA thus is also bound thereto. Plaintiff also argues that the Agreement lacks consideration. But a mutual promise to arbitrate itself reflects consideration. (Garner v. Inter-State Oil Co. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 619, 625.) Plaintiff has thus failed to show unconscionability sufficient to prevent enforcement here.
The Motion is therefore GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections are OVERRULED.
Counsel for FCA is to give notice of this ruling. 2 Jimenez v. Cont. to 10/5 Betitto’s Tow and and Service Center, Inc. 3 Daneshmand Cont. to 10/5 v. Tareen 4 Joseph v. Bell Before the Court is a motion for undertaking filed by defendants David Bell, DDS, M.D, David Bell, MD, Inc. and Orthognathic Surgery, M.D. (Defendants) against plaintiff Daniel Joseph (Plaintiff.) For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1030, when the plaintiff resides out of the state, the defendant may file a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to file an undertaking to secure an award of costs and recoverable attorney’s fees which may be awarded in the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1030, subd. (a).) The motion must be supported by points and authorities and affidavits showing: (1) plaintiff's nonresidency; (2) a “reasonable possibility” defendant will