Judge: James A. Mangione, Case: 37-2023-00007125-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-09-15 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 17, 2023

08/18/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-75 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:James A Mangione

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00007125-CU-BC-CTL MARTINEZ VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant Nissan North America, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Arbitration is denied.

This case is factually similar to Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1324, 1333-1336, review granted July 19, 2023, S279969 (Ford Motor), which guides this Court's analysis. Although this case is pending review in the California Supreme Court, the Court may still cite it for its persuasive value and establish a conflict of authority. (See Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 456 (allowing trial courts to exercise discretion to choose sides between conflicting authority).) Additionally, several other cases have agreed with the reasoning in Ford Motor. (Kielar v. Superior Court of Placer County (Cal. Ct. App., Aug. 16, 2023, No. C096773) -- Cal. Rptr. 3d ---, 2023 WL 5270559, at *1; Montemayor v. Ford Motor Co. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 958, 968-971.) Distinguishing Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486, Ford Motor found that 'manufacturer vehicle warranties that accompany the sale of motor vehicles without regard to the terms of the sale contract between the purchaser and the dealer are independent of the sale contract.' (Ford Motor, 89 Cal. App. 4th at 1334.) Consequently, warranty claims brought against a car manufacturer are not 'founded in and intertwined with sales contracts,' id. at 1333, and do not arise out of or directly relate to the sales contract. The Court agrees with this reasoning and finds equitable estoppel is inapplicable in this case.

Ford Motor also rejected the car manufacturer's arguments that it could compel arbitration as a third-party beneficiary under the sales contract. (Id. at 1337-40.) As in Ford Motor, nothing in the Retail Installment Sales Contract ('the Contract') evidences an intent and/or motivating purpose to benefit Defendant. Indeed, Defendant is not named anywhere in the Contract; instead, Mossy Nissan National City is identified as the 'Seller-Creditor (sometimes 'we' or 'us' in this contract).' (ROA 12, Ex. A at pg.1.) Instead, the arbitration provision states: 'Any claim or dispute, . . . between you and us or our employees, agents, successors or assigns, which arises out of or relates to your credit application, purchase or condition of this vehicle, this contract or any resulting transaction or relationship (including any such relationship with third parties who do not sign this contract) shall, at your or our election, be resolved by neutral, binding arbitration and not by a court action.' (Id. at pg. 7 (emphasis added); id. at pg. 1 ('you or we may elect to resolve any dispute by neutral, binding arbitration').) Defendant relies on the clause including claims against 'third parties who do not sign this contract' in arbitration. However, immediately after this provision is the requirement that either Plaintiffs or Mossy Nissan National City elect arbitration to resolve the dispute. Finally, the Contract indicates that the 'Manufacturer's Rebate' is not applicable and expressly disclaims any warranty provided by the vehicle manufacturer. (Id. at pg. 5.) Therefore, Defendant cannot enforce the arbitration agreement as a non-signatory, third-party.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2969711  10 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  MARTINEZ VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC [IMAGED]  37-2023-00007125-CU-BC-CTL All evidentiary objections are overruled. All requests for judicial notice are granted.

The minute order is the order of the Court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2969711  10