Motion to Compel Arbitration
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 25CV148970: MALANI, et al. vs FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by WALNUT CREEK FORD (Defendant) CRS# 349022354059 in Department 23 Tentative Ruling - 05/28/2026 Ruben Sundeen The Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by WALNUT CREEK FORD on 11/24/2025 is Granted. This case arises under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Plaintiffs Keshav and Damodar Malani (Plaintiffs) purchased a 2023 For Mustang Mach-E that was manufactured and/or distributed by Defendant Ford Motor Company (Ford).
Plaintiffs allege that Ford failed to repair or replace the vehicle after it manifested battery and infotainment defects, and assert claims against Ford for breach of implied warranty and other violations of the Song-Beverly Act, as well as a claim for fraudulent inducement by concealment. Plaintiffs also assert a claim for negligent repair against Walnut Creek Ford.
Walnut Creek Ford moves to compel binding arbitration of Plaintiffs claims pursuant to the arbitration agreement in the Retail Installment Sale Contract (RISC) signed by Plaintiffs, and stay this case pending the outcome of arbitration. The Court did not receive an opposition to this motion. For the reasons discussed below, Fords unopposed motion is GRANTED.
LEGAL STANDARD
Arbitration agreements are valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract. (Dougherty v. Roseville Heritage Partners (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 93, 101; Code Civ. Proc. (CCP) § 1281.) If a party moving to compel arbitration demonstrates the existence of a valid arbitration clause, the burden shifts to the opposing party to demonstrate that the agreement cannot be interpreted to require arbitration of the dispute (e.g., that it is unenforceable or some exception to arbitrability exists). (McIsaac v. Foremost Ins. Co. Grand Rapids, Michigan (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 418, 422; CCP § 1281.2
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?”
DISCUSSION
Page 1 of the RISC contains a box stating, Agreement to Arbitrate: By signing below, you agree that, pursuant to the Arbitration Provision on page 5 of this contract, you or we may elect to resolve any dispute by neutral, binding arbitration and not by a court action. See the Arbitration Provision for additional information concerning the agreement to arbitrate. (Clayton Decl. Ex. A at p. 1.) Both Plaintiffs signed this provision. At page 5, the RISC contains a prominent arbitration provision which states, in relevant part:
Any claim or dispute, whether in contract, tort, statute or otherwise (including the interpretation and scope of this Arbitration Provision, any allegation of waiver of rights under this Arbitration Provision, and the arbitrability of the claim or dispute), 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
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 25CV148970: MALANI, et al. vs FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by WALNUT CREEK FORD (Defendant) CRS# 349022354059 in Department 23 resulting transaction or relationship (including any such relationship with third parties who do not sign this contract) shall, at your or our election, be resolved by neutral, binding arbitration and not by a court action.
(Id. at p. 5.) Walnut Creek Ford has demonstrated the existence of a valid, enforceable arbitration agreement that covers Plaintiffs negligent repair cause of action. (See CCP § 1281.2)
The Court previously continued this matter for evidence that Walnut Creek Ford had demanded arbitration and that Plaintiffs had refused. (See CCP § 1281.2; see also Mansouri v. Sup. Ct. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 633, 640-41 [section 1281.2 does require a party seeking to compel arbitration to plead and prove a prior demand for arbitration under the parties arbitration agreement and a refusal to arbitrate under the agreement.].) Walnut Creek Ford timely filed a supplemental brief citing Hyundai Amco America, Inc. v.
S3H, Inc., where the court held that the filing of a lawsuit despite the existence of an enforceable arbitration agreement establishes the plaintiffs refusal to arbitrate. Section 1281.2 requires only that the party seeking to compel arbitration allege in the petition or motion, the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such controversy. The statute does not include a requirement that the petitioning party have made a demand for arbitration, only that the other party has refused to arbitrate.
Arbitration can be refused without a formal demand ever having been made. Hyundai Amco’s filing of a lawsuit rather than commencing arbitration proceedings as required by the agreement affirmatively establishes Hyundai Amco’s refusal to arbitrate the controversy. (Hyundai Amco Am., Inc. v. S3H, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 572, 577.)
Walnut Creek Ford has demonstrated the existence of a valid, enforceable arbitration agreement and Plaintiffs refusal to arbitrate. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion.
This case is STAYED pending completion of arbitration. The Court sets a compliance hearing for 6/8/2027 at 2:30 p.m., at which time the parties can update the Court regarding the status of the arbitration. FURTHER CONFERENCE A Case Management Conference is scheduled for 06/08/2027 at 02:30 PM in Department 23. *If a party does not timely contest the tentative ruling and appear at the hearing, the tentative ruling will become the order of the Court.*
How to Contest a Tentative Ruling Through the eCourt Public Portal
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 25CV148970: MALANI, et al. vs FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by WALNUT CREEK FORD (Defendant) CRS# 349022354059 in Department 23 To contest a tentative ruling, notify the Court and all parties no later than 4:00 p.m. one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue by completing the following steps: 1. Log in to the eCourt Public Portal.
2. Select Case Search.
3. Enter the case number and select Search.
4. Select the case name.
5. Select the Tentative Rulings tab.
6. Click Contest This Ruling. 7. Enter your name and reason for contesting.
8. Select Proceed. You must also notify the department and all opposing parties by 4:00 p.m. one court day before the hearing. Notice to the department must be sent to: Dept23@alameda.courts.ca.gov. Remote Appearance Information For Department 23 Zoom appearance information, please visit: https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov/?q=node/397/1152402 Please provide this information to any self-represented or opposing parties.