SARIM SIDDIQUI VS. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC25628737 - December 12, 2025 Hearing date: December 12, 2025 Case number: CGC25628737 Case title: SARIM SIDDIQUI VS. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC ET AL Case Number: | | CGC25628737 | Case Title: | | SARIM SIDDIQUI VS. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-12-12 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION | Rulings: | | On the Law and Motion/Discovery calendar for December 12, 2025, line 15. DEFENDANT MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION.

Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC's motion to enforce arbitration and stay proceedings is granted. In a motion to compel arbitration, the court employs a three-step process. "First, the moving party bears the burden of producing prima facie evidence of a written agreement to arbitrate the controversy." (Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 165 [citation simplified].) "At this step, a movant need not follow the normal procedures of document authentication and need only allege the existence of an agreement and support the allegation as provided in rule [3.1330]." (Iyere v. Wise Auto Group (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 747, 755 [citation simplified].)

The second and third steps permit the opposing party to controvert the existence of the arbitration agreement with evidence and the moving party to respond with evidence. Because plaintiff Sarim Siddiqui has not opposed the motion, Mercedes-Benz's showing at the first step is sufficient. Mercedes-Benz is not a signatory to the arbitration contract, but it is an express and intended third-party beneficiary. (Maurino Decl., Ex. 1, p. 4.) It may therefore enforce the arbitration agreement. (Ronay Family Limited Partnership v. Tweed (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 830, 838 ["a third party beneficiary of an arbitration agreement may enforce it"].)

Whether an arbitration agreement is unconscionable or unenforceable are defenses that must be raised with a factual showing. Since Siddiqui has not opposed this motion he has not made this factual showing. The motion to compel arbitration is granted and this case is stayed pending arbitration.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(301/CVA) | |