Judge: Eddie C. Sturgeon, Case: 37-2022-00027679-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
DEPT.:
EVENT DATE:
EVENT TIME:
HALL OF JUSTICE
TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 26, 2023
10/27/2023 09:00:00 AM C-67 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
JUDICIAL OFFICER:Eddie C Sturgeon
CASE NO.:
CASE CATEGORY:
EVENT TYPE:
CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:
Civil - Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00027679-CU-BC-CTL GOMEZ VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 03/28/2023
Defendants Nissan North America, Inc. and Mossy Nissan Kearny Mesa's Motion to Compel Arbitration is DENIED. All requests for judicial notice are granted. (ROA Nos. 23, 34.) Plaintiff does not dispute the existence of the Retail Installment Sales Contract with Mossy Nisan Poway (i.e., the dealership).
Rather, the central question is whether Defendants are entitled to enforce the arbitration agreement in that contract despite it not being a signatory.
It is undisputed that Defendants were not party to the arbitration agreement at issue. Defendants argue that this is of no consequence because in Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486 the court applied equitable estoppel to conclude the plaintiffs could be compelled to arbitrate their claims against FCA even though FCA was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement. But unlike the plaintiffs in Felisilda, here Plaintiff has not sued the dealership who was a signatory to the sales contract. 'It makes a critical difference that the Felisildas, unlike [Plaintiff], sued the dealership in addition to the manufacturer. In Felisilda, it was the dealership-a signatory to the purchase agreement-that moved to compel arbitration rather than the non-signatory manufacturer.' (Ngo v. BMW of North America, Inc. (9th Cir. 2022) 23 F.4th 942, 950.) Like in Ngo, the arbitration provision in this case limits the parties who can bring claims to arbitration and that limitation excludes Defendant. (Id. at 947.) Additionally, Plaintiff's claims are based on the manufacturer's warranties and are not based on or 'inextricably tied up' with the sale agreement. (Id. at 950; see also Yeh v. Super. Ct. (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 264, 295-296; Kramer v. Toyota Motor Corp. (9th Cir. 2013) 705 F.3d 122, 1128.) Under California law 'manufacturer vehicle warranties that accompany the sale of motor vehicles without regard to the terms of the sale contract between purchaser and the dealer are independent of the sales contract.' (Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1324, 1334; Yeh, supra, 95 Cal.App.5th at 295-296.) 'Not one of the plaintiffs sued on any express contractual language in the sales contract,' 'independent manufacturer warranties are not part of, but are independent from, retail sale contracts,' and 'Plaintiffs' claims in no way rely on the sale contracts.' (Ford Motor Warranty Cases, supra, 89 Cal.App.5th at 1336.) That the warranty accompanied the sale is of no consequence-the manufacturer's warranties are the target of Plaintiff's lawsuit. Accordingly, Defendants are unable to compel arbitration under an equitable estoppel theory.
Defendants are also unable to compel arbitration as third-party beneficiaries because they cannot satisfy the elements required by Goonewarden v. ADP, LLC (2019) 6 Cal.5th 817. For example, there is no evidence that the contracting parties had a 'motivating purpose' of providing a benefit to Defendants.
(See id. at 830 ['the contracting parties must have a motivating purpose to benefit the third party, and not simply knowledge that a benefit to the third party may follow from the contract.']; see also Ford Motor Warranty Cases, supra, 89 Cal.App.5th at 1338-1340 [discussing lack of intention to benefit vehicle Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS
2956273 17 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: GOMEZ VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC [IMAGED] 37-2022-00027679-CU-BC-CTL manufacturer and lack of motivating purpose in vehicle sale contract].) The motion is denied.
Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS
2956273 17