Judge Steven J. Kleifield, Case 21STCV07596 2023-04-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven J. Kleifield, Case: 21STCV07596, Date: 2023-04-06 Tentative Ruling

Inform the clerk if you submit on the tentative ruling. If moving and opposing parties submit, no appearance is necessary.

NOTICE OF PLANNED CONTINTUANCE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANT''S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Defendant Nissan North America, Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration in this Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act case is on calendar for April 6, 2023. In support of its motion, Nissan argues, inter alia, that the doctrine of equitable estoppel requires the plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims against Nissan based on an arbitration clause in the agreement that the plaintiffs signed with the dealer from which they purchased the vehicles that are the subject of the claims. In making that argument, Nissan's motion relies on the decision of the Third District of the Court of Appeal in Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486. In Felisilda,, the Court held that under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, the plaintiffs were bound to arbitrate their claims against an automobile manufacturer that was not a signatory to the purchase agreement between the plaintiffs and the dealer from which the plaintiffs bought the vehicles in question and which contained an arbitration clause.

On April 4, 2023, Division 8 of the Second District Court of Appeal in Song-Beverly Act litigation known as the Ford Motor Warranty Cases (Case Number B312261) declined to follow Felisilda. Instead, that Court held that the plaintiffs in that litigation were not bound under the doctrine of equitable estoppel to arbitrate their claims against an automobile manufacturer based on an arbitration clause in the purchase agreement between the plaintiffs and the dealer from which the plaintiffs bought the vehicles in question. This Court thus must now decide whether to follow Felisilda or the Ford Motor Warranty Cases.

The Court is aware that Nissan has other arguments in support of its motion to compel arbitration, independent of equitable estoppel, and that the Plaintiff has other arguments in opposition to the motion, independent of its efforts to fend off equitable estoppel. Nevertheless, the Court is of the view that it will be helpful for the resolution of the motion for the parties to file supplemental briefs on whether the Court should follow Felisilda or the Ford Motor Warranty Cases. Accordingly, at the April 6, 2023 hearing, the Court will set a schedule for supplemental briefing on that question and continue the hearing to a date that is convenient for counsel for the parties and the Court.