Judge: Thomas S. Mcconville, Case: 2023-01301428, Date: 2023-07-24 Tentative Ruling

The court declines to consider Plaintiff Margarita Delgado’s opposition to Defendant Nissan North America, Inc.’s (“defendant”) Motion to Compel Arbitration, as plaintiff’s filing was filed six days late.  (CRC 3.1300(d)).  That deprived defendant of an opportunity to file a reply, unless the court decided to continue defendant’s motion.  The court will not continue the motion.  Plaintiff’s delay should not cause a delay to considering defendant’s motion on the merits.

In addition, the court is familiar with the issue presented in defendant’s motion—namely, can an automobile manufacturer compel arbitration based on a provision in a retail installment sales contract (“RISC”) when the manufacturer is not a signatory to the RISC.  These types of motions, under this fact pattern, come before the court with regularity.  The court is familiar with the law.

Turning to the merits, Defendant Nissan North America, Inc.’s  Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action is DENIED. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2, et seq.)

On the record before the court, the existence of the RISC signed by plaintiff has been established.  (Critchlow Decl., Exh. C).  The court will next consider the arbitration provision in the RISC.

First, the court notes that defendant is not a party to the RISC.  Defendant concedes this.  (Critchlow Decl., Exh. C; Mot. p. 14 “this matter is proceeding against the [defendant]—a nonsignatory to the arbitration agreement”).

Several cases have analyzed the issue currently presented by defendant’s motion:  what should a court consider when an auto maker, who is not a party to the RISC, seeks to enforce the arbitration clause?  The court recognizes that there is a split of authority between Ochoa v. Ford Motor Company (Ford Motor Warranty Cases) (2023) 89 Cal. App. 5^th 1324  and Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486. The court finds that Ochoa is more persuasive, particularly in this instance, where the facts are more closely analogous.  In accord with Ochoa is Montemeyer v. Ford (June 26, 2023) ___ Cal.App.5th ___,  2023 WL 4181909 (manufacturer cannot compel arbitration based upon equitable estoppel or 3rd party beneficiary basis).

Defendant has not established that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applies because here plaintiff’s claims for breach of express warranty and fraud against moving party are not “intimately intertwined” with the underlying obligations set forth in the sales contract with the dealership. (See JSM Tuscany, LLC v. Superior Ct. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1222, 1237; Ochoa, supra, at 1334-1335.).

Defendant also fails to establish that it is a third-party beneficiary to the sales contract. Defendant has not established that the RISC intended to benefit the vehicle manufacturer, or that the motivating purpose of plaintiff and the dealership was to provide a benefit to moving party, or that allowing the manufacturer to enforce the arbitration provision as a third-party beneficiary would be consistent with the reasonable expectations of the contracting parties. (See Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC (2019) 6 Cal.5th 817, 830; Ochoa, supra, at 1338-1339).

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted. Judicial notice is limited to the existence of, filing of, and legal effect of the pleadings but not as to the truth of any disputed facts stated therein.

Defendant shall give notice.