Pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1008 for reconsideration of the Court's January 25, 2023 order compelling arbitration of Plaintiffs' claims under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act ("Song Beverly"). While the Plaintiffs' reconsideration motion itself is untimely (and very much so) under Section 1008(b), the Court is treating the motion as a request under Section 1008(c) that the Court on its own motion reconsider the order compelling arbitration. The Court is accepting that invitation and is vacating the order compelling arbitration because of a dramatic change over the past year in the law on which the order was premised. The stay of proceedings in this Court that resulted from the order compelling arbitration does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction to reconsider the order on its own motion.  (Pinela v. Nieman Marcus Group, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 227, 237-239.) The order compelling arbitration was based in large part on the Third District Court of Appeal's decision in Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486.  The Court of Appeal in that case held that an automobile manufacturer that was not a signatory to an arbitration agreement between a Song-Beverly plaintiff and the dealer from which the plaintiff purchased the automobile that was the subject of the plaintiff's claims could enforce the agreement and compel arbitration of the claims under the doctrine of equitable estoppel. Felisilda is no longer good law. In the period since the motion to compel arbitration was granted, Felisilda's adoption of equitable estoppel as a basis to compel arbitration of Song-Beverly claims by dint of an arbitration clause in the consumer's agreement with the dealership from which the subject automobile was purchased was disavowed by the Third District itself in Kielar v. Superior Cour (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 614, and rejected by the First District Court of Appeal in Yeh v. Superior Court (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 264, and two divisions of the Second District Court of Appeal in the Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1324 ("Ochoa"), and Montemayor v. Ford Motor Company (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 958. The Second District decision in Ochoa also undermined the alternative basis on which the order compelling arbitration was granted, namely, the third party beneficiary theory. In light of this ruling vacating the order compelling arbitration, the stay of proceedings in this Court is lifted and the case will be set for trial.