Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: Ramos v. FCA, Date: 2023-07-31 Tentative Ruling

The Motion to Compel Arbitration, filed by Defendant FCA US LLC (“FCA”) on 4/4/23 is DENIED.

FCA moves to compel arbitration based on the arbitration agreement contained in the Retail Installment Sale Contract – Simple Finance Charge (with Arbitration Provision)  (“RISC”) attached as Exhibit A to ROA 80. But FCA is not a signatory thereto.  A nonsignatory seeking to enforce an arbitration agreement bears the burden to establish standing to enforce the agreement. (Jones v. Jacobson (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1, 15.)  FCA has failed to meet that burden here. 

The arbitration provision states that it is between the seller and the buyer.  FCA argues that it may nonetheless demand arbitration here based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel, under Felisilda v. FCA USA LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486.  But Felisilda is distinguishable, as this Motion is brought by FCA.  Instead, the reasoning in Ford Motor Warranty Cases (“Ochoa”) (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1324 (rev. granted 7/19/23) and Montemayor v. Ford Motor Company (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 958 are persuasive.  This Court, consistent with the reasoning in those opinions, and for the reasons stated therein, finds that equitable estoppel does not apply here. (See also Kramer v. Toyota Motor Corp. (9th Cir. 2013) 705 F.3d 1122, 1128-1133 [“the inequities that the doctrine of equitable estoppel is designed to address are not present.”].)  Nor has FCA shown third party beneficiary status as a basis to invoke the RISC’s arbitration provision. (See Ochoa, supra, 89 Cal.App.5th at 338, Montemayor, supra, and Ngo v. BMW of North America, LLC (9th Cir. 2022) 23 F.4th 942, 946-948.) 

The Motion is therefore DENIED.

Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice (ROA 84) is GRANTED as to the existence of the opinions presented.

Counsel for Plaintiff is to give notice of this ruling.