Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 22CHCV00993, Date: 2023-04-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00993    Hearing Date: April 21, 2023    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 4/21/23

Case #22CHCV00993

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Motion filed on 2/14/23.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Nissan of North America, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Hugo Sanoni

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling arbitration and staying this action pending the  arbitration. 

RULING: The hearing on the motion will be continued. 

This action arises out of Plaintiff Hugo Sanoni’s (Plaintiff) purchase of a 2019 Nissan Sentra (the Vehicle) pursuant to a “Retail Installment Sales Contract – Simple Finance Charge (With Arbitration Provision)” (the Contract/RISC) Plaintiff entered with Nissan of Mission Hills.  (Dizon Decl., Ex.B; Complaint ¶¶6, 9).  The RISC was for the sale of a warranted vehicle.  Id.  Plaintiff contends that the Vehicle is defective and Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) has been unable to service or repair the Vehicle to conform to the applicable express warranties after a reasonable number of opportunities.  (Complaint ¶¶56, 65-66).  Plaintiff further contends that despite the foregoing, Nissan has failed to promptly repurchase the Vehicle as required under the Song-Beverly Act.  (Complaint ¶¶11, 67). 

As a result, on 10/26/22, Plaintiff filed this action against Nissan and others for: (1) Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act – Breach of Express Warranty; (2) Fraudulent Inducement – Intentional Misrepresentation; (3) Fraudulent Inducement – Concealment and (4) Negligent Repair (not alleged against Nissan).   

Nissan filed an answer to the complaint on 11/28/22.  On 2/14/22, Nissan filed and served the instant motion seeking an order compelling arbitration and staying this action during the pendency of the arbitration.  On 4/10/23, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the instant motion and on 4/14/23, Nissan filed a reply to the opposition. 

The opposition, which as noted above was filed on 4/10/23, notes that the California Second District Court of Appeal would be conducting a hearing on 3/30/23 that would address the issues of equitable estoppel and third-party beneficiary raised in the instant motion, as well as the applicability of Felisilda (2020) 53 CA5th 486.  (See Opposition, p.8, fn.3).  It is unclear why the opposition did not actually cite the case, Ochoa v. Ford Motor Company (and four other cases – Ford Warranty Cases) (B312261) (2023 WL 2768484) which was decided on 4/4/23.  The Ford Warranty Cases is also not addressed in the reply.

The Court in the Ford Warranty Cases, a Second District Court of Appeal Case, declined to follow Felisilda, one of the main authorities relied on in the motion.  See Ford Warranty Cases, supra at *4. 

The Court finds that it would be in the interests of justice to allow both parties to address this recent case.  Therefore, the  hearing will be continued.  Both Plaintiff and Nissan are permitted to file and serve supplemental briefs limited to 10 pages each.  The supplemental briefs are due to be filed and served at least 10 court days before the continued hearing date.