Lanier v. Ford Motor Co. CA2/6

Filed 4/26/23 Lanier v. Ford Motor Co. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

BRENDA LANIER, 2d Civil No. B315114 (Super. Ct. No. 21CVP-0042) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

Brenda Lanier brought this action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code, § 1790 et seq.), commonly known as the “lemon law,” after repeated attempts to fix her Ford vehicle failed. She named Ford Motor Co. (FMC) as a defendant along with Paso Robles Ford, an authorized service center whose technicians attempted the repairs. Lanier did not name the selling dealer as a co-defendant. FMC and Paso Robles Ford moved to compel arbitration, citing a provision contained in the sale contract signed by Lanier and the selling dealer. The trial court denied the motion. It rejected both theories proffered by defendants: first, that Lanier

was barred by the doctrine of equitable estoppel from arguing that non-signatories could not enforce the arbitration provision; and second, that defendants could enforce the provision as third- party beneficiaries of the sale contract. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 Lanier bought a new 2017 Ford Fiesta from Jim Vreeland Ford in Buellton. She financed her purchase through the dealership and signed a “Retail Installment Sale Contract” (sale contract) identifying her as the “Buyer” and Jim Vreeland Ford as the “Seller-Creditor.” Lanier received a 5-year / 60,000 mile powertrain warranty from the manufacturer, FMC, covering the engine and transmission. She did not buy an optional service contract from the dealer. The Fiesta developed problems with its automatic transmission during the warranty period. Lanier took the vehicle to the factory-authorized service center at Paso Robles Ford (a closer dealership) for repairs. She filed this action when attempts to address the problems failed. Her complaint included five statutory lemon law claims and one fraud claim against FMC. She also brought a single claim for negligent repair against Paso Robles Ford. Lanier did not name the selling dealer as a defendant. FMC moved to compel arbitration pursuant to a provision in the sale contract requiring Lanier and Jim Vreeland Ford to resolve “any claim or dispute . . . by neutral, binding arbitration and not by a court action.” The trial court denied the motion. FMC and Paso Robles Ford appealed. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1294 [“An aggrieved party may appeal from: [¶] (a) An order dismissing or denying a petition to compel arbitration”].)