Judge: Nathan R. Scott, Case: Garcia v. Nissan North America, Date: 2023-06-14 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Nissan North America Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration is denied.

The agreement requires arbitration of disputes between plaintiff and the dealer.  (See Do decl. Ex. D [“Any claim or dispute . . . between you and us”].)  It could have expressly required plaintiff to arbitrate disputes with the manufacturer – but it does not.

Defendant fails to show it may enforce the arbitration agreement, whether under equitable estoppel, third party beneficiary, agency, or any other doctrine.  (See Ford Motor Warranty Cases [Ochoa v. Ford Motor Co.] (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1324.) 

The court finds Ford Motor Warranty Cases to be better reasoned than Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486.  (See Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 456 [trial courts “can and must make a choice between . . . conflicting decisions”].)

Defendant shall give notice.