GILL vs MOSS BROS Motion to Compel Arbitration by MOSS
CVRI2301730
CHEVROLET, INC. BROS CHEVROLET, INC.
Tentative Ruling:
This action arises out of Plaintiff’s purchase of a used vehicle. In the operative First Amended
Complaint (“FAC”) filed in this case on October 26, 2023, Plaintiff alleges that, on September 9,
2022, she purchased a used 2020 Chevrolet Traverse vehicle from Defendant Moss for the total
sale price of $45,397.25. (FAC, ¶ 9.) Plaintiff alleges that, prior to purchasing the vehicle,
Defendant Moss represented to Plaintiff that the vehicle had not been in an accident or damaged.
(FAC, ¶ 11.) While Plaintiff was signing documents to purchase the vehicle, Moss disclosed the
vehicle’s rental history, which concerned Plaintiff, but told Plaintiff it was too late to cancel the
3
¶11: “On or about April 23, 1987, the plaintiff, and his PARENTS, Anthony and Phyllis Picozzi ( hereafter"
PARENTS"), entered in
Hearing Date
May 23, 2024
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
GILL vs MOSS BROS Motion to Compel Arbitration by MOSS
CVRI2301730
CHEVROLET, INC. BROS CHEVROLET, INC.
Tentative Ruling:
This action arises out of Plaintiff’s purchase of a used vehicle. In the operative First Amended
Complaint (“FAC”) filed in this case on October 26, 2023, Plaintiff alleges that, on September 9,
2022, she purchased a used 2020 Chevrolet Traverse vehicle from Defendant Moss for the total
sale price of $45,397.25. (FAC, ¶ 9.) Plaintiff alleges that, prior to purchasing the vehicle,
Defendant Moss represented to Plaintiff that the vehicle had not been in an accident or damaged.
(FAC, ¶ 11.) While Plaintiff was signing documents to purchase the vehicle, Moss disclosed the
vehicle’s rental history, which concerned Plaintiff, but told Plaintiff it was too late to cancel the
3
¶11: “On or about April 23, 1987, the plaintiff, and his PARENTS, Anthony and Phyllis Picozzi ( hereafter"
PARENTS"), entered in