Judge: Linda S. Marks, Case: 2022-01253484, Date: 2022-10-10 Tentative Ruling

1. Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by FCA US, LLC on 6/6/22
2. Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by Sonora Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram on 6/6/22

Initially, Plaintiff Marissa Rappaport’s (“Plaintiff”) Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED in its entirety. Defendants FCA US LLC and Sonora Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram’s objections to the evidence presented in the Request for Judicial Notice are each OVERRULED.

“As a general rule, only a party to an arbitration agreement may enforce the agreement.” (Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486, 495, review denied (Nov. 24, 2020).) “However, there are several exceptions that allow a nonsignatory to invoke an agreement to arbitrate.” (Ibid.; citing JSM Tuscany, LLC v. Superior Court (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1222, 1236-1237].) “The doctrine of equitable estoppel is one of the exceptions.” (Ibid.)

“Under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, as applied in both federal and California decisional authority, a nonsignatory defendant may invoke an arbitration clause to compel a signatory plaintiff to arbitrate its claims when the causes of action against the nonsignatory are intimately founded in and intertwined with the underlying contract obligations.” (Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486, 495, review denied (Nov. 24, 2020), citations omitted [citing Boucher v. Alliance Title Co., Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 262, 268; Goldman v. KPMG, LLP (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 209, 220, 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 534]; see also JSM Tuscany, LLC v. Superior Court (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1222, 1236-1237.)

“Where the equitable estoppel doctrine applies, the nonsignatory has a right to enforce the arbitration agreement.” (JSM Tuscany, LLC v. Superior Court (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1222, 1237, fn. 18.)

Here, the court finds that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applies as Plaintiff’s claims against FCA and Sonora Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram are intimately founded in and intertwined with the underlying contract obligations contained in the contract of sale between Plaintiff and Lodi Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram relating to the condition of the purchased vehicle. These claims include but are not limited to the warranties, information, and statutes discussed in the contract of sale, which are now Plaintiff’s basis for relief against FCA and Sonora Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram. The Arbitration Provision expressly provides that claims that “arise out of to related to” the “purchase or condition of the vehicle” shall be subject to arbitration, even by third party nonsignatories. Like the plaintiff in Felisilda, Plaintiff is suing based on defects relating to the condition of the vehicle that allegedly existed “at the time of the sale” and seeks Defendants to buy back her vehicle based on the alleged nonconformities and related warranties. (Complaint, ¶ 42; Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486, 496–497, review denied (Nov. 24, 2020).)

Plaintiff cites to Ngo v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 23 F.4th 942, 949 (9th Cir. 2022) and other California District Court cases for her contention that the arbitration is not enforceable by a non-signatory. Decisions of the federal courts interpreting California law are not binding on this court and are merely persuasive. (Finley v. Superior Court (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1160, as modified on denial of reh’g (June 22, 2000).)

The court finds that the causes of action against the nonsignatory Defendants are intimately founded in and intertwined with the underlying contract obligations such that doctrine of equitable estoppel applies and Defendants can invoke the arbitration clause as a nonsignatory.

Tentative Ruling: Defendants FCA US LLC and Sonora Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram’s (“Defendants”) Motions to Compel Arbitration are GRANTED. This case is STAYED pending the outcome of the arbitration proceedings. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.)

The Court will set a date for an ADR Review hearing.

Moving parties to give notice