Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV00728, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00728    Hearing Date: May 17, 2023    Dept: G

Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action

Respondent: Plaintiff Rodolfo A. Sierra

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action is CONTINUED to a date to be set at the hearing on May 17, 2023.

Defendant and Plaintiff are ordered to brief the court on whether the court should follow Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486, or Ford Motor Warranty Cases (Apr. 4, 2023, B312261) __ Cal.App.5th __ [2023 WL 2768484]) in determining whether Defendant can compel arbitration pursuant to equitable estoppel, subject to the briefing schedule set by the court at the hearing.

BACKGROUND

This is a lemon law action. On June 6, 2021, Plaintiff Rodolfo A. Sierra entered into a warranty contract with Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc. by purchasing a 2021 Acura TLX. Plaintiff alleges¿the vehicle contained or developed defects with its lighting system, transmission, body system, engine, and steering system.

On July 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant and Does 1-50, alleging (1) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d); (2) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (b); (3) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3); (4) breach of express written warranty; and (5) breach of implied warranty of merchantability.

On March 20, 2023, Defendant filed the present motion. A hearing on the motion is set for May 17. A final status conference is also set for April 24, 2024, with a jury trial set for May 7.

ANALYSIS

Defendant argues Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to a valid and binding arbitration agreement. The court CONTINUES the hearing for the parties to provide additional briefing on the issue of equitable estoppel.

On March 20, Defendant sought to compel arbitration pursuant to equitable estoppel, in addition to other grounds, and replied on Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486 (Felisilda), as controlling authority. On April 4, the Second District Court of Appeal published a decision in Ford Motor Warranty Cases (Apr. 4, 2023, B312261) __ Cal.App.5th __ [2023 WL 2768484]) that disagrees with the Third District Court of Appeal’s holding on equitable estoppel in Felisilda. “Decisions of every division of the District Courts of Appeal are binding upon all . . . superior courts of this state.” (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.) When there are conflicting appellate court decisions, “the court exercising inferior jurisdiction can and must make a choice between the conflicting decisions.” (Id., at p. 456.)

Because Ford Motor Warranty Cases was decided after Defendant filed the present motion, the court believes both parties and the court would benefit from the opportunity to further brief the issue of equitable estoppel in light of these conflicting decisions. Accordingly, the court orders Plaintiff and Defendant to further brief the court on whether the court should follow Felisilda or Ford Motor Warranty Cases in determining whether Defendant can compel arbitration pursuant to equitable estoppel. The court will set the briefing schedule at the hearing.