The Opinion Clarifies Shifting Burden Of Proof For Motions To Compel Arbitration.

The California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration in a lemon law/warranty dispute. Kostandian v. American Honda Motor Company, B345489, (2/2 , pub. 5/27/26) (Chavez, Richardson, Gilbert).

Where a moving party meets its initial burden of establishing an arbitration agreement by producing a copy or reciting its terms verbatim, the burden shifts to the opposing party to dispute the agreement’s existence. If the opposing party fails to raise such a dispute, the motion to compel must be granted. The court applied this framework to both the lease arbitration clause (as to Standard Motor) and the warranty booklet arbitration agreement (as to American Honda Motor).

The court also held that a plaintiff’s own complaint allegations constitute judicial admissions that can satisfy a defendant’s prima facie burden.

COMMENT: Why publish? The opinion clarifies the burden-shifting framework for motions to compel arbitration, particularly regarding “Doing Business As” named parties and warranty booklet arbitration agreements, issues that arise in consumer vehicle litigation.

The DBA issue matters in arbitration disputes because a party seeking to compel arbitration must show it is actually a party to the agreement. If the agreement is signed under a trade name, a court may question whether the legal entity behind that name has standing to enforce it. California’s fictitious business name statutes govern DBA registrations, and Kostandian argued those statutes imposed an additional evidentiary burden on Honda, an argument the court rejected.

Kostandian himself had alleged in his complaint that “Standard Motor is doing business as Acura of Los Angeles Westside,” which constituted a judicial admission.