Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV00260, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV00260    Hearing Date: April 27, 2023    Dept: G

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

Respondent: Plaintiffs Yu Gao Huang and Candy Huang

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action is CONTINUED to a date and time in Dept. G (Pomona) to be determined at the hearing on April 27, 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.  The court will set a briefing schedule at the hearing.

BACKGROUND

This is a lemon law action. On January 27, 2021, Plaintiffs Yu Gao Huang and Candy Huang entered into a warranty contract with Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. by purchasing a 2021 Honda Accord from Car Pros Honda El Monte (Car Pros). Plaintiffs allege¿their vehicle was equipped with a defective computerized driver-assistance safety system and collision mitigation braking system.

On January 27, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendant and Does 1-10, alleging (1)¿breach of express warranty and (2) fraudulent concealment.

On March 3, 2023, Defendant filed the present motion. A hearing on the motion is set for April 27. A case management conference is also set for June 21.

ANALYSIS

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

On March 3, 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.)

While Plaintiff and Defendant referenced Ford Motor Warranty Cases in their respective opposition and reply, 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.