Search This Blog


calmediation
calmediation

Categories

Subscribe to this blog's feed

« Arbitration, Vacatur: California Supreme Court Rules 100-Day Deadline Is Not Jurisdictional And Equitable Tolling/Estoppel Could Apply | Main | Arbitration, Deadlines, Prompt Payment, Fees: Plaintiff Successfully Exercises Option To Withdraw From Arbitration Because Defendant Employer Was Tardy Paying Arbitration Fees »

07/09/2023

Nonsignatories: Second Dist., Div. 7 Holds Ford Motor Company Cannot Compel Arbitration Under Dealership Contract

Second District, Div. 7 Sides With Second Dist., Div. 8, Rejects Reasoning In Third District Case.

        Rejecting equitable estoppel and third-party beneficiary theories, the Court of Appeal holds that Ford Motor Company cannot piggyback on to the arbitration provision in a dealership contract, and thus Ford is unable to compel arbitration with the buyer of its vehicle. The plaintiff's claim for breach of express warranty against Ford was not based on or intertwined with the dealership's contract with the buyer. In fact, the dealership contract provided it offered no express manufacturer's warranties, though the manufacturer, Ford, could do so. Rosanna Montemayor et al. v. Ford Motor Company, B20477 (2/7  6/26/23) (Feuer, Perluss, Escalante).

        The opinion is in line with the reasoning in the Ford Motor Warranty Cases, 89 Cal.App.5th 1324 (2023) [see my 5/3/23 post] and at odds with the reasoning in Felisilda v. FCA US LLC , 53 Cal.App.5th 486 (2020) [see my 8/29/2020 post]. 

Posted by on 07/09/2023 at 09:09 PM in Arbitration: Equitable Estoppel, Arbitration: Nonsignatories, Arbitration: Third Party Beneficiaries |

| |

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The comments to this entry are closed.