Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV24437, Date: 2023-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: December 5, 2023

Case Name: Gallegos v. Ford Motor Company, et al.

Case No.: 21STCV06484

Matter: Motion for Reconsideration

Moving Party: Plaintiff Vanessa Isabel Gallegos 

Responding Party: Defendant Ford Motor Company 

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion for Reconsideration is granted.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

This is a lemon law matter.  On July 7, 2021, the Court compelled this matter to arbitration.  Since that time, Plaintiff Vanessa Isabel Gallegos apparently did not initiate arbitration.  

Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the Court’s July 7, 2021, arbitration order on the basis of new law that indicates that a non-signatory manufacturer like Defendant Ford Motor Company cannot compel arbitration under the circumstances here.

The Court has inherent authority to reconsider its rulings, (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(c)), particularly when the parties have had ample opportunity to brief the issues.

Further, the Court has jurisdiction to reconsider an arbitration order.  (Pinela v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 227, 237 [“the trial court has authority to reconsider orders compelling or denying arbitration.”].)

Plaintiff is correct that neither third-party beneficiary or equitable estoppel theories would allow for Ford Motor Company, a non-signatory to a dealer’s arbitration agreement, to compel arbitration here.  (See, e.g., Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1324, 1336 [“Plaintiffs’ claims in no way rely on the sale contracts. Equitable estoppel does not apply.”]; Montemayor v. Ford Motor Co. (Cal. Ct. App. June 26, 2023) No. B320477, 2023 WL 4181909, at *7 [“We look to the facts alleged in the complaint to determine whether the Montemayors’ claims against Ford are dependent on and inextricably intertwined with the obligations imposed by the sales contract. [ ] They are not. As discussed, the Montemayors allege as part of each cause of action against Ford at issue on appeal that Ford's obligations arose out of its express written warranty, not the sales contract.”].)

Therefore, the Motion for Reconsideration is granted.  The Request for Judicial Notice is granted.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.