Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 21STCV09874, Date: 2023-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV09874    Hearing Date: August 22, 2023    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiffs Carla Vega and Leonel Torres filed a motion for reconsideration of the order granting Defendant FCA US, LLC’s motion to compel arbitration.  The court construes the motion as a suggestion that the court reconsider its prior order on its own motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (c).  Section 1008, subdivision (c) states:  “If a court at any time determines that there has been a change of law that warrants it to reconsider a prior order it entered, it may do so on its own motion and enter a different order.”  After granting a motion to compel arbitration, the court retains jurisdiction to reconsider the order.  (Blake v. Ecker (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 728, 738-739.) 

The court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration on January 7, 2022.  At that time, the court was required to grant it under Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486, which was directly on point.  There is now a split of authority, with Felisilda on one side, and Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1324, review granted, Montemayor v. Ford Motor Company (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 958, and Kielar v. Superior Court (Aug. 16, 2023) 2023 WL 5270559 on the other.  The court may now choose which line of authority to follow.  (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 456.)  This constitutes a change in the law. 

In the motion to compel arbitration, Defendant sought to compel arbitration because Plaintiffs agreed with the dealership to arbitrate disputes arising out of the sales contract and regarding the condition of the car.  Defendant argued it was entitled to enforce the agreement under the doctrine of equitable estoppel and as a third-party beneficiary.  For the reasons stated in Montemayor v. Ford Motor Company, Ford Motor Warranty Cases, and Kielar, the court concludes equitable estoppel does not apply and defendant is not a third-party beneficiary. 

On its own motion, the court thus reconsiders its order dated January 7, 2022 granting Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  The motion for reconsideration is GRANTED.  The January 7, 2022 order is vacated.  Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is DENIED.   

The stay of the litigation is lifted.  The case is returned to the active calendar.   A case management conference is set for October 20, 2023 at 8:30 a.m.

            The moving party is to give notice.