Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 21STCV42065, Date: 2023-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV42065    Hearing Date: November 6, 2023    Dept: 68

Motion for Reconsideration

Alberto Camacho Nuno, et al. vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 21STCV42065

Moving Parties: Plaintiffs Alberto Camacho Nuno, Itzel Nuno, and Concepcion Nuno

Background

            This is a lemon law case filed by Plaintiffs Alberto Camacho Nuno, Itzel Nuno, and Concepcion Nuno (Plaintiffs). On June 20, 2022, this Court granted Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s (Defendant) motion to compel arbitration. The Court granted the motion pursuant to the Third District’s Felisilda v. FCA US, LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486, which held that arbitration clauses in the purchase agreements with car dealerships may apply to the third party car manufacturers in certain circumstances. In that case, the dealership had originally been a party to the lawsuit, so the Court of Appeal held that the arbitration clause would apply to the manufacturer as well.

            On April 4, 2023, 10 months after this Court ruled on Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, the Second District ruled in In Ford Motor Warranty Cases (Ochoa, et al.) (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1324, that the express language of the standard-form RISC arbitration clause permits only the signatories and named parties to the contract to enforce the arbitration clause and choose to have disputes between them compelled to arbitration. There have been a couple of other cases that have been decided with similar holdings to Ochoa.

            Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is based on Ochoa. Plaintiffs argue that Ochoa represents a change in the law that allows for the reconsideration of this Court’s granting of Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.

            Defendant makes several arguments in opposition. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ motion is untimely, and that this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the motion because the parties are currently in the arbitration process. Defendant also argues that Felisilda is still good law because Ochoa did not overrule Felisilda.

            Plaintiffs argue in their reply that the Court may reconsider its decisions at any time. Plaintiffs also argue that the Court retains jurisdiction involving the same agreement to arbitrate. Finally, Plaintiffs argue that Ochoa should be the controlling law because it is distinguishable from Felisilda’s holding, and Plaintiffs’ case more closely aligns with the circumstances in Ochoa than with those in Felisilda. The dealership was never involved in Plaintiffs’ case, as Plaintiff only sued Defendant as the manufacturer.

In the Meantime…

The parties had been ordered to arbitrate this matter on June 20, 2022.  On December 19, 2022 this Court conducted a Status Conference re: Arbitration and was told by the parties that they had selected a neutral, were awaiting a status conference and expected a fall 2023 arbitration hearing.  Its fall 2023.  Based on that representation the Court set a status conference re: Arbitration for November 29, 2023, anticipating that the parties would have concluded the arbitration.

On May 18, 2023, following the Ochoa decision the Plaintiff came to to court on an ex parte application titled Plaintiffs’ Notice and Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration of Prior Court Order, or Alternatively, To Specially Set a Date for a Motion for Reconsideration.  The grounds were noted in the supporting declation.

“7. Plaintiffs will be greatly prejudiced and harmed should they be denied a jury trial and instead be forced to continue with binding arbitration. Further, the parties will incur significant expense should arbitration continue while this matter remains unresolved. Finally, in light of the time limitations imposed by California Code of Civil Procedure, section 583.310, Plaintiff has only five years to bring this case to trial as the deadline is not tolled or extended during the period that the case is in arbitration.”

The Court on May 19, 2023 ruled that it would hear the matter on shortened time, set the matter for hearing on May 19, 2023 and DENIED the Motion for Reconsideration in light of Ochoa.

On October 2, 2023 Plaintiff filed the motion before this Court today.  It is seeking the same reconsideration relief, but points to additional decisions that reach the same conclusion as Ochoa.  This is a repeat of the prior reconsideration motion, with more citations to show that other courts are agreeing with Ochoa.

CCP § 1008 governs reconsideration. It reads as follows:

“(a) When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order…

(b) A party who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or part, or granted conditionally or on terms, may make a subsequent application for the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law…

(c) If a court at any time determines that there has been a change of law that warrants it to reconsider a prior order it entered, it may do so on its own motion and enter a different order.”

The issue before this Court is not simply whether there is authority, or even increasing authority, supporting the Ochoa line of cases.  The Court agrees with that line of cases as having been better reasoned than Felisida.  But what is before this Court is not a Motion to Compel Arbitration.  What is before this Court is what is proper given the Court’s prior order to arbitrate, given the Court’s prior rejection of this Reconsideration Motion on this topic, and that fact that this arbitration should be nearly completed.

The Court shall not grant a reconsideration, now requested for the second time.  The Motion is DENIED (again) with the Court choosing not to reconsider the June 20, 2022 ruling.