On July 21, 2022 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Maria Hernandez Solano & Hector Solano,
and
Does 1-10,
Nissan North America, Inc,
Sb Nissan, Inc,
for Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
ORrGINAL
KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP n N OR SOURT OF CALIFORNIA
TY
SAN BERNAPNini
Bi ERNARDINO.
Roger Kirnos (SBN 283163) ( DISTRICT
RogerK@knightlaw.com
Jeffery Mukai (SBN 273338) MAR 1 6 2023
JefferyM@knightlaw.com
10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500 BY >
Los Angeles, CA 900 SAMANTHA NEUBAUER, DEPUTY
Telephone: (310) 552-2250
Fax: (310) 552-7973
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
MARIA HERNANDEZ SOLANO and
HECTOR SOLANO
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
11
MARIA HERNANDEZ SOLANO & Case No.: CIVSB2215629
12 HECTOR SOLANO, Unlimited Jurisdiction
13 Plaintiff(s), PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
14 ARBITRATION AND STAY
VS. PROCEEDINGS
1S
Hearing Date: March 29, 2023
16 NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Hearing Time: 8:30 AM
Delaware Corporation, SB NISSAN, INC.,
17 Department: S25
a California Corporation dba NISSAN OF
18 SAN BERNARDINO, and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Action Filed: July 21, 2022
19 Trial Date: Not Set
20 Defendants.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
aie
Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS tee setesesteeseseetessterseestoes
II ARGUMENT seeeeeeeeee seeeeesseeeseseeseeeasseneeeen . seettees
A Nissan is Not Entitled to Enforce the Arbitration Clause in the Financing
Contract Between Plaintiffs and The Selling Dealership . 2
Plaintiffs are not equitably estopped from refusing to arbitrate with NNA.. 2
il NNA is not a third-party beneficiary of the dealership’s arbitration contract. 10
B The Arbitration Clause is Unconscionable sesteeesenesatatenss ceeteeeeteeneretsene 13
IIL. CONCLUSION . cesseceecesseeecarseeeeassesesessesesassssessecsesesseeteesseetsass cesesaeeeeaeseeeeeen 15
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“ii
Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration
Document Filed Date
March 16, 2023
Case Filing Date
July 21, 2022
Category
Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
ORrGINAL KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP n N OR SOURT OF CALIFORNIA TY SAN BERNAPNini Bi ERNARDINO. Roger Kirnos (SBN 283163) ( DISTRICT RogerK@knightlaw.com Jeffery Mukai (SBN 273338) MAR 1 6 2023 JefferyM@knightlaw.com 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500 BY > Los Angeles, CA 900 SAMANTHA NEUBAUER, DEPUTY Telephone: (310) 552-2250 Fax: (310) 552-7973 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, MARIA HERNANDEZ SOLANO and HECTOR SOLANO SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 11 MARIA HERNANDEZ SOLANO & Case No.: CIVSB2215629 12 HECTOR SOLANO, Unlimited Jurisdiction 13 Plaintiff(s), PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL 14 ARBITRATION AND STAY VS. PROCEEDINGS 1S Hearing Date: March 29, 2023 16 NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Hearing Time: 8:30 AM Delaware Corporation, SB NISSAN, INC., 17 Department: S25 a California Corporation dba NISSAN OF 18 SAN BERNARDINO, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Action Filed: July 21, 2022 19 Trial Date: Not Set 20 Defendants. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 aie Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration Table of Contents INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS tee setesesteeseseetessterseestoes II ARGUMENT seeeeeeeeee seeeeesseeeseseeseeeasseneeeen . seettees A Nissan is Not Entitled to Enforce the Arbitration Clause in the Financing Contract Between Plaintiffs and The Selling Dealership . 2 Plaintiffs are not equitably estopped from refusing to arbitrate with NNA.. 2 il NNA is not a third-party beneficiary of the dealership’s arbitration contract. 10 B The Arbitration Clause is Unconscionable sesteeesenesatatenss ceeteeeeteeneretsene 13 IIL. CONCLUSION . cesseceecesseeecarseeeeassesesessesesassssessecsesesseeteesseetsass cesesaeeeeaeseeeeeen 15 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “ii Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration