Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22TRCV00602, Date: 2023-03-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22TRCV00602 Hearing Date: March 29, 2023 Dept: 8
Tentative Ruling¿
¿¿
HEARING DATE: March 29, 2023
¿¿
CASE NUMBER: 22TRCV00602
¿¿
CASE NAME: Paula
Watts v. Nissan North America, Inc., et al.
¿¿
MOVING PARTY: Defendant
Nissan North America, Inc.
¿¿
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff
Paula Watts
¿¿
TRIAL DATE: None Set
¿¿
MOTION:¿ Motion to Compel Arbitration and
Stay Proceedings
¿
Tentative Rulings: This matter is STAYED for 30 days
pending the decision from the Second District Court of Appeal in Martha
Ochoa vs. Ford Motor Company, Case No. B312261.¿¿
¿
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
¿¿ ¿
On April 1, 2021,
Plaintiff Paula Watts (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she purchased a used,
certified pre-owned 2020 Nissan Altima (the “Vehicle”) and that she entered
into an express written contract with Defendant Nissan North America, Inc.
(“Nissan”) for a new vehicle limited warranty. Plaintiff alleges that the
Vehicle has a certain transmission defect. Plaintiff further alleges that she
presented the Vehicle to Defendant Lad Carson-N, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company dba Carson Nissan (“Carson”) on multiple occasions to repair
the Vehicle but such repair attempts were ultimately unsuccessful.
On July 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed
this action, alleging Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express
Warranty, Fraudulent Inducement – Intentional Misrepresentation, Fraudulent
Inducement – Concealment as to Defendant Nissan and negligent repair as to
Defendant Carson.
II. PROCEDURAL
BACKGROUND
On
February 22, 2023, Nissan filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay
Proceedings. Plaintiff has opposed the motion and Nissan has replied.
III. ANALYSIS¿
¿
A.
Legal
Standard ¿
“[T]he petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence
of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence . . . .” Giuliano v. Inland Empire Personnel, Inc.
(2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284). “In determining whether an arbitration
agreement applies to a specific dispute, the court may examine only the
agreement itself and the complaint filed by the party refusing arbitration
[citation]. The court should attempt to give effect to the parties' intentions,
in light of the usual and ordinary meaning of the contractual language and the
circumstances under which the agreement was made.” (Weeks v. Crow
(1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 350, 353). “Doubts as to whether an arbitration clause
applies to a particular dispute are to be resolved in favor of sending the
parties to arbitration. The court should order them to arbitrate unless it is
clear that the arbitration clause cannot be interpreted to cover the dispute.”
(California Correctional Peace Officers Ass'n v. State (2006) 142
Cal.App.4th 198, 205).
“[A] party opposing the petition bears the burden of
proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense.
[Citation.] In these summary proceedings, the trial court sits as a trier of
fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary
evidence, as well as oral testimony received at the court's discretion, to
reach a final determination.” (Giuliano, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p.
1284).
“If a court of competent jurisdiction, whether in this
State or not, has ordered arbitration of a controversy which is an issue
involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State, the
court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a
party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until an
arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such
earlier time as the court specifies. . . .” (CCP § 1281.4.)
“If any suit or proceeding be brought in any of
the courts of the United States upon any issue referable to arbitration under
an agreement in writing for such arbitration, the court in which such suit is
pending, upon being satisfied that the issue involved in such suit or
proceeding is referable to arbitration under such an agreement, shall on
application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such
arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement,
providing the applicant for the stay is not in default in proceeding with such
arbitration.” (9 U.S.C. § 3.)
B.
Discussion
¿
The Court notes that the case of Martha
Ochoa, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, Case Number B312261, is currently
pending before the Second District of the Court of Appeal with oral argument
set for hearing on March 30, 2023, i.e., the day immediately after the hearing
on the instant motion. The Ochoa case concerns matters that directly
relate to this action and in particular may affect the applicability of Felisilda
v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486 upon which Nissan relies
extensively in its motion. Should the Second District, which is the appellate
district for this Court, decide Ochoa differently than Felisilda,
this Court would be obligated instead to follow the new precedent established
therein.
Accordingly, the Court stays this entire
action for 30 days pending the decision of the Second District of the Court of
Appeal in Martha Ochoa, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, Case Number
B312261.
In light of the Court’s decision to
temporarily stay this matter, the Court declines to rule on the evidentiary
objections and request for judicial notice submitted in connection with this
motion. The Court reserves its decision on those items pending a subsequent
hearing date on this motion after the Second District has issued its decision
in Ochoa.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Court STAYS this entire action
for 30 days pending the decision
from the Second District of the Court of Appeal in Martha Ochoa vs. Ford
Motor Company, 2d Dist. Case No. B312261.
The
Court further sets a status conference for April 26, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. so that
the Court and parties may determine whether a further stay is necessary or if
further briefing is warranted in light of the Second District’s anticipated decision
in Ochoa.