Judge: Eddie C. Sturgeon, Case: 37-2023-00019908-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 18, 2024

01/19/2024  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) 37-2023-00019908-CU-BC-CTL BAKIR VS MERCEDES-BENZ USA LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 07/12/2023

Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC's Motion to Compel Arbitration is DENIED. Defendant's request for judicial notice is granted. (ROA 12.) Although Plaintiff raises objections as to the admissibility of the Retail Installment Sales Contract with Mercedes Benz of El Cajon as submitted by Defendant, Plaintiff does not dispute its existence or the that Plaintiff entered into the agreement. The central question is whether Defendant is entitled to enforce the arbitration agreement therein despite not being a signatory.

It is undisputed that Defendant was not party to the arbitration agreement at issue. Defendant argues 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, Defendant is unable to compel arbitration under an equitable estoppel theory.

Defendant is 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 Defendant.

(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

3058641  3 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  BAKIR VS MERCEDES-BENZ USA LLC [IMAGED]  37-2023-00019908-CU-BC-CTL manufacturer and lack of motivating purpose in vehicle sale contract].) The motion is denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3058641  3