Judge: Steven J. Kleifield, Case: 21STCV07596, Date: 2023-05-03 Tentative Ruling

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

Case Number: 21STCV07596    Hearing Date: May 3, 2023    Dept: 57

The Court's tentative decision is to deny Nissan's motion to compel arbitration.

First, Nissan has waived its right to seek arbitration under the standards for waiver set forth in Spracher v. Paul M. Zagaris, Inc. (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1135, 1138.   Plaintiff filed suit in February 2021.  Nissan did not seek to compel arbitration until February 2023, just three months before the trial is due to start.  Nissan fails to offer adequate reasons for its very long delay in seeking arbitration.

Second, even if Nissan did not waive its right to arbitration, it cannot seek to enforce the arbitration agreement because it is not a party to the agreement.  Nissan contends that it is able to enforce the agreement based on (1) the doctrine of equitable estoppel, and (2) its status as a third beneficiary of the agreement.   The Court finds that neither of those arguments for Nissan's claim of entitlement to enforcement of the agreement is availing.   The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in  Ochoa v. Ford Motor Co. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1324, is on point.  It thoroughly explains why parties in the shoes of Nissan cannot rely on the theories of equitable estoppel or asserted third party beneficiary status to invoke an arbitration agreement like the one at issue here.   In the Court's view, Ochoa's analysis of the equitable estoppel and third beneficiary issues is more persuasive than the analysis of those issues in Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486.  Accordingly, this Court is choosing to follow Ochoa, rather than Felisilda.