Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV03473, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV03473    Hearing Date: April 27, 2023    Dept: 39

Sharlynn Pinkard, et al. v. Nissan North America, Inc.

Case No. 22STCV03473

Motion to Compel Arbitration

            Plaintiffs Sharlynn Pinkard and DeAndre Franks (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this against Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. (“Defendant”) under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.  Now, Defendant moves to compel arbitration based upon an agreement between Plaintiffs and the dealership.  The Court denies the motion, per Ochoa v. Ford Motor Company (2023) --- Cal.Rptr.3d ---, 2023 WL 2768484.  Plaintiffs’ breach of warranty claims against Defendant were not based on the sales contract containing the arbitration clause.  “[M]anufacturer vehicle warranties that accompany the sale of motor vehicles without regard to  the terms of the sale contract between the purchaser and the dealer are independent of the sale contract.”  (Id., p. *4.) 

            The Court considered whether Defendant is a third party beneficiary to 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 provision at issue includes the dealership and “employees, agents, successors or assigns” of the dealership.  (See Declaration of Alexandra Do, Exh. C, p. 10.)  There is no evidence that Defendant falls within one of these categories, and the arbitration clause does not include “the manufacturer” or “affiliates” or any term that might encompass Defendant.  The Court agrees with the holding in Ochoa that the language referencing “any such relationship with third parties who do not sign this contract” applies to what disputes shall be arbitrated, and not the identity of those who may compel arbitration.  (See Ochoa, supra, 2023 WL 27684848, at p. *8.) 

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

1.         The Court denies Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.

2.         The Court lifts the stay of discovery in this case.

3.         The Court advances and continues the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable to May 23, 2023, at 8:30 a.m.  The Court orders the parties to do the following: (a) Meet-and-confer via telephone (not email); (2) Schedule the deposition; (c) Review the list of relevant documents on the Court’s website and discuss whether that list is acceptable; and (d) Unless Plaintiff takes the motion off-calendar, file a joint status report on or before May 15, 2023, informing the Court whether the dispute has been resolved and, if not, what issues the Court must resolve. 

4.         The Court advances and continues the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication to October 2, 2023, at 8:30 a.m.  The Court orders that Plaintiff may not advance the hearing on this motion without filing an ex parte application or stipulation and proposed order.

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