Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 22PSCV01465, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV01465, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV01465 Hearing Date: May 24, 2023 Dept: G

Defendant Nissan North America, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings

Respondent: Plaintiffs Elizabeth Barcenas and Lupita Sandoval

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Nissan North America, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings is CONTINUED to a date to be set at the hearing on May 24, 2023, in Department G (Pomona).

Defendant and Plaintiffs 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 December 15, 2017, Plaintiffs Elizabeth Barcenas and Lupita Sandoval entered into a warranty contract with Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. by purchasing a 2017 Nissan Rogue Sport. Plaintiffs alleges¿the vehicle contained or developed defects with its electrical system, transmission, and A/C system.

On October 25, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendant, Metro Nissan of Montclair (Metro Nissan), and Does 1-10, 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 implied warranty of merchantability; (5) fraudulent inducement; and (6) negligent repair.

On February 17, 2023, Defendant filed the present motion. On May 16, Plaintiffs dismissed Metro Nissan from the present action.

A hearing on the motion and case management conference are set for May 24, 2023.

ANALYSIS

Defendant argues Plaintiffs’ 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 February 17, 2023, Defendant sought to compel arbitration pursuant to equitable estoppel, in addition to other grounds, and relied 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 finds 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 Plaintiffs 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.