Judge: Joel R Wohlfeil, Case: 37-2022-00037109-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 15, 2023

08/18/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-73 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Joel R. Wohlfeil

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00037109-CU-BC-CTL DIENES VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 04/25/2023

The Motion (ROA # 39) of Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. ('Defendant' or 'Honda') for an Order to compel arbitration and stay the above-captioned action by LEON DIENES and AMBER DIENES ('Plaintiffs'), is DENIED.

This ruling is based on the analysis set forth below.

Defendant submits the declaration of Samantha Jett (ROA # 40) in support of this Motion.

Paragraph 2 of this declaration states: 'Attached as Exhibit 'A' is a true and correct copy of the 'Retail Installment Sale Contract - Simple Finance Charge (with Arbitration Provision)' entered into between Leon Dienes and Amber Dienes and Pacific Honda on or about June 26, 2 2018, for the purchase of a new 2018 Honda Odyssey, VIN - 5FNRL6H73JB081534.' However, there is no exhibit attached to this declaration, and the Motion is denied on this basis.

Even assuming this agreement had been attached, it is clear that Honda is not a party or signatory to this RISC agreement. It was entered into by Plaintiffs and non-party Pacific Honda.

Honda argues it can compel arbitration under this RISC agreement, but this argument is not persuasive.

The opinion in Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2023) 89 Cal. App. 5th 1324 (review granted) is directly on point and will be followed this Court.

The Court finds the reasoning expressed in the Ford opinion to be persuasive. See California Rules of Court, Rule 8.1115(e)(1) (review granted of published appellate opinion, citation for persuasive value), and (e)(3) and Comment ('Under the authority recognized by subdivision (e)(3) of this rule ... by standing administrative order of the Supreme Court, superior courts may choose to be bound by parts of a published Court of Appeal decision under review when those parts conflict with another published appellate court decision ....).

The Court declines to follow Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal. App. 5th 486, which now appears to be an outlier. See also Ngo v. BMW of North America, LLC (9th Cir. 2022) 23 F. 4th 942 and Montemayor v. Ford Motor Company (2023) 92 Cal. App. 5th 958.

The decision in Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2023) 89 Cal. App. 5th 1324 found that equitable estoppel did not apply to permit a manufacturer to compel arbitration, and that the manufacturer was not a Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2967202 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  DIENES VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC [IMAGED]  37-2022-00037109-CU-BC-CTL third-party beneficiary of the owner's contract with the dealer. This Motion is denied on this basis. As a result, the Court does not address Plaintiffs' unconscionability argument.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2967202