Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV09499, Date: 2023-06-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09499    Hearing Date: June 20, 2023    Dept: 39

Arturo Ruiz, et al. v. Nissan North America, Inc., et al.

Case No. 22STCV09499

Motion to Compel Arbitration

            Plaintiffs Arturo Ruiz and Ariana Ruiz (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this against Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. (“Nissan”) and Wish Automotive III, Inc. doing business as “Nissan of Alhambra” (the “Dealership”) under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.  Now, Defendant moves to compel arbitration.  The Court need not resolve any authenticity issues with the arbitration agreement because the motion is denied on the merits.  The agreement is between Plaintiff and “Nissan of Downtown LA,” not either of the defendants.  The Court denies the motion, per Ochoa v. Ford Motor Company (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1324.  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. 1334.)    

            The Court considered whether Defendants are third-party beneficiaries 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 Defendants fall within one of these categories, and the arbitration clause does not include “the manufacturer” or “affiliates” or any term that might encompass Defendants.  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, 89 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1336-1340.) 

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

1.         The Court denies Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.

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