Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 22STCV09651, Date: 2023-04-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09651    Hearing Date: April 13, 2023    Dept: 72

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Date:               4/13/23 (8:30 AM)                                         

Case:               Eliseo Hernandez et al. v. Nissan North America, Inc. et al. (22STCV09651)

COURT’S ORDER:

Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. and Mass Automotive Group LLC dba Nissan of Mission Hills’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is CONTINUED.

After briefing was completed, the Court of Appeal for the Second District issued an opinion in Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2023) 2023 WL 2768484 (Ford Motor) disagreeing with the Third District’s conclusion in Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486 that equitable estoppel applied to the arbitration provision in the form Retail Installment Sale Contract (“RISC”). (See Ford Motor, 2023 WL 2768484 at 4 [“We respectfully disagree with Felisilda’s analysis for the following reasons”].) Defendant Hyundai Motor America relies on Felisilda in asserting that equitable estoppel applies. (Mtn. at 15:20-23, 16:27-17:28; Reply at 2:22-28.)

“Decisions of every division of the District Courts of Appeal are binding upon all the justice and municipal courts and upon all the superior courts of this state, and this is so whether or not the superior court is acting as a trial or appellate court.” (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.) However, “[W]here there is more than one appellate court decision, and such appellate decisions are in conflict . . . the court exercising inferior jurisdiction can and must make a choice between the conflicting decisions.” (Id. at 456.)

Accordingly, the Court orders simultaneous supplemental briefing regarding whether, in light of the Ford Motor decision, equitable estoppel applies to the arbitration provision in the RISC at issue in the instant motion. (Wilner Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. 5.)

Further, in Ford Motor, the Court of Appeal also found that the manufacturer was not a third-party beneficiary of the RISC. (Ford Motor, 2023 WL 2768484 at 6-8.) Defendants also rely on Felisilda in asserting that they are third-party beneficiaries under the RISC. (Mtn. at 21:26-22:7.) The parties are also ordered to address whether, in light of the Ford Motor decision, the Court can find that defendants are third-party beneficiaries of the arbitration provision in the RISC at issue in the instant motion. 

The Motion to Compel Arbitration is CONTINUED to June 8, 2023, at 9:30 a.m., in Department 72 (Stanley Mosk Courthouse). By no later than May 26, 2023, the parties shall file and serve their supplemental briefs limited to 10 pages addressing the issues raised above.