Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV20342, Date: 2023-03-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20342    Hearing Date: March 23, 2023    Dept: 39

Terry Bardwell v. FCA US, LLC, et al.
Case No. 22STCV20342

Motion to Compel Arbitration

            Plaintiff Terry Bardwell filed this complaint under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and Civil Code section 1792 against FCA US, LLC (“FCA”).  Plaintiff asserts a cause of action for negligent repair against Santa Monica Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram (the “Dealership”).  Both defendants move to compel arbitration.  Because the Dealership’s motion is fully briefed, the Court advances the hearing to March 23, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., and shall hear the motion at the same time as FCA’s motion. 

            The moving party on a motion to compel arbitration “bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence, while a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense.  The trial court sits as the trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, and any oral testimony the court may receive at its discretion, to reach a final determination.”  (Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 842, internal citations omitted.)

The Court finds that the arbitration agreement is authentic, and the Court grants the motion under Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486, 496.  That case held that the doctrine of equitable estoppel permits a non-signatory automobile manufacturer to enforce an identical arbitration clause.  In the alternative, the Court finds that Defendants are third-party beneficiaries 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 expressly 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.  This same analysis applies to the motion by the Dealership. 

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

1.         The Court advances the hearing on the Dealership’s motion to compel arbitration from March 27, 2023, to March 23, 2023. 

2.         Defendants’ motions to compel arbitration are granted.

3.         The Court advances and vacates the final status conference and trial dates.  The Court orders the parties to meet-and-confer and to schedule the arbitration forthwith. 

3.         The Court sets an Order to Show Cause why this case should not be dismissed following arbitration for December 4, 2023, at 8:30 a.m.  The parties shall file a status report on or before November 20, 2023, discussing the status of the case and the dates for the arbitration.  The Court provides notice: If Plaintiff’s counsel does not appear at the OSC hearing, either remotely or in-person, absent good cause, the Court will assume the case has been resolved by way of arbitration or mediation and shall dismiss this case with prejudice.

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