Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV02852, Date: 2022-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV02852    Hearing Date: September 27, 2022    Dept: 39

Violeta Hernandez v. Nissan North America, Inc.

Case No. 22STCV02852

Motion to Compel Arbitration

            Plaintiff Violeta Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Nissan North America, Inc. (“Defendant”) under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.  Now, Defendant moves to compel arbitration.  Plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement stating: “Any claim or dispute, whether in contract, tort, statute, or otherwise . . . between you and us or our employees, agents, successors, or assigns, which arises out of or relates to your credit application, purchase or condition of this vehicle, this contract or any resulting transaction or relationship (including any such relationship with third parties who  do not sign this contract) shall, at your or our election, be resolved by neutral, binding arbitration and not by a court action.”  (See Declaration of Brett Alford, Exh. A.)  The Court continued the original hearing date and afforded Plaintiff’s counsel an opportunity to file a response to this declaration, so the Court may consider its contents.   

            Plaintiff argues that the signature is too light to make clear that it is her signature, and the sections for the “co-buyer” have a “N/A” notation.  The Court finds that the agreement is sufficiently authentic.  The arbitration agreement has Plaintiff’s name typed at the top under the section titled “Buyer Name and Address.”  There are signatures in the sections for “Buyer Signature.”  Brett Alford, the controller and custodian of records for the dealership, states in his declaration that the agreement must be signed by the buyer at the dealership.  (Declaration of Brett Alford, ¶ 7.)  Plaintiff does not provide a declaration in which she denies signing the agreement.  Therefore, the Court finds that the arbitration agreement is authentic.   

            The motion is granted, per Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486.  That case held that the doctrine of equitable estoppel permits a non-signatory automobile manufacturer to enforce an identical arbitration clause.  Plaintiffs argue that the case “was incorrectly decided” and “[t]he holding of Felisilda was incorrect as a matter of law.”  The Court follows precedent until it is overruled by the California Supreme Court.

            In the alternative, the Court finds that Defendant is a third-party beneficiary of the arbitration agreement.  A non-signatory to an arbitration agreement may enforce an arbitration agreement if the non-party is a third-party beneficiary.  (Jenks v. DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 1, 9-10; see also Civ. Code, § 1559.)  To establish that it is a third-party beneficiary to a contract, a party must “plead a contract which was made expressly for his benefit and one in which it clearly appears that he was a beneficiary . . . .”  (Luis v. Orcutt Town Water Co. (1962) 204 Cal.App.2d 433, 441.)  The arbitration agreement express covers lawsuits based on the “condition of this vehicle” and references “third parties who do not sign this contract” has having a basis to enforce the arbitration agreement. 

            Plaintiff argues that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable, citing Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83.  However, this arbitration agreement has a choice of law provision stating that the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.) governs this agreement.  A choice of law provision in an arbitration agreement is enforceable.  (See Coopers & Lybrand v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 524, 538.)  The arbitration agreement is not unconscionable under federal law. 

            The Court has considered Plaintiff’s remaining arguments and finds none is persuasive.  Therefore, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is granted.

            2.         The Court advances and vacates all hearing dates.

            3.         The Court orders the parties to meet-and-confer, and to schedule the arbitration forthwith.

            4.         The Court sets an Order to Show Cause why this case should not be dismissed following arbitration for March 8, 2023, at 8:30 a.m.  The Court provides notice that if Plaintiff’s counsel does not appear, absent good cause, the Court will assume that the case has been resolved by way of arbitration or settlement and shall dismiss the case with prejudice.

            5.         Defendant’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.