Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 22STCV38870, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV38870    Hearing Date: May 11, 2023    Dept: 52

Plaintiffs Nanci Aleman Garcia and Kassandra Aleman Aguilar’s Motion for Reconsideration

Plaintiffs Nanci Aleman Garcia and Kassandra Aleman Aguilar move for the court to reconsider its order granting defendant Hyundai Motor America’s motion to compel arbitration.  A motion for reconsideration must be “based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law.”  (CCP § 1008(a).)

Plaintiffs show new law on issues relevant to defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Six days after the court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, the Court of Appeal issued its opinion in Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1324, 306 Cal.Rptr.3d 611 (Ford).  In it, the Court of Appeal criticized Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486, which this court relied on in finding that Hyundai Motor America could enforce the plaintiffs’ arbitration agreement with a non-party dealership under the doctrine of equitable estoppel. 

The new Ford opinion, however, does not warrant reversing this court’s order.  In Ford, the Court of Appeal considered only the power of a nonsignatory manufacturer to enforce arbitration provisions contained in sales contracts between dealerships and consumers.  The court stated, “California law does not treat manufacturer warranties imposed outside the four corners of a retail sale contract as part of the sale contract.”  (306 Cal.Rptr.3d at p. 621.)    

Here, the court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration based on two independent arbitration agreements.  Even if the court applied Ford and found Hyundai Motor America could not enforce the arbitration agreement in plaintiffs’ lease contract, that would not disturb the court’s ruling.  The court found that, regardless of the lease contract, Hyundai could enforce the arbitration agreement contained in its vehicle owner’s handbook and warranty information.  Ford does not apply because the handbook contains both the arbitration provision and the express warranty plaintiffs’ action relies on.  For the reasons discussed in the court’s order granting the motion to compel arbitration, Hyundai Motor America can compel arbitration under the arbitration provision in the owner’s handbook and warranty information.

  Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is denied.