MO-015 - Watts v. Sonic Automotive
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court Christine Watts, Respondent, v. Sonic Automotive, d/b/a Century BMW, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2013-000606 Appeal from Greenville County Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge Memorandum Opinion No. 2014-MO-015 Heard May 6, 2014 Filed June 4, 2014 AFFIRMED Kurt M. Rozelsky, of Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP, of Greenville, Richmond T. Moore and Dennis M. Black, both of Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Gedney M. Howe, III, of Gedney M. Howe, III, PA, of Charleston, Richard A. Harpootlian, of Richard A. Harpootlian, PA, of Columbia, A. Camden Lewis, of Lewis, Babcock & Griffin, LLP, of Columbia and Brady R. Thomas, Terry E. Richardson, Jr. and David Butler, of Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook &Brickman, LLC, all of Barnwell, and Michael E. Spears, of Michael E. Spears, PA, of Spartanburg, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: This case concerns the enforceability of an arbitration agreement. The trial court denied Appellant's motion to compel arbitration. We affirm. In 2005, Respondent entered into a contract with Appellant for the purchase of a car.1 The transaction included the execution of an arbitration agreement. In December 2006, Appellant filed a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the terms of the arbitration agreement. At the time of its motion to compel arbitration, Appellant agreed the matter would be decided pursuant to state law. After this Court decided Herron v. Century BMW (Herron I), 387 S.C. 525, 693 S.E.2d 394 (2010), the United States Supreme Court decided Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., 130 S. Ct. 1758 (2010), and AT & T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011). For the reasons set forth in Herron v. Century BMW (Herron II), 395 S.C. 461, 719 S.E.2d 640 (2012), cert denied, 132 S. Ct. 2436 (2012), this Court declined to review its Herron I decision. We are constrained by Herron II, which similarly forecloses Appellant's efforts in this appeal. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the above-referenced decisions of this Court. AFFIRMED. TOAL, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, JJ., Acting Justices James E. Moore and Eugene C. Griffith, Jr., concur. 1 Respondent's father was also involved in the purchase of the vehicle.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
