The Ninth Circuit ruled this week that a class of car owners could pursue their court claims against the manufacturer, Toyota, for product defects and false advertising, despite the existence of an arbitration agreement in each of the owners’ purchase agreements with the car dealerships. The court held that Toyota had not proven either of the types of equitable estoppel that would allow it, as a non-signatory to the purchase agreements, to enforce the agreements’ arbitration clause. Kramer v. Toyota Motor Corp., __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 357792 (9th Cir. Jan. 30, 2013). (How could I resist posting about an arbitration case with “Kramer’ in the caption?!)
The plaintiffs’ claims related to defects in the antilock brake systems of 2010 models of the Toyota Prius and Lexus HS 250h. Plaintiffs asserted multiple claims against Toyota, including violation of California laws prohibiting unfair competition and false advertising, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and breach of contract. After “vigorously litigating the action” for almost two years, Toyota moved to compel arbitration a few months after SCOTUS issued Concepcion. Toyota pointed to language in the purchase agreements allowing arbitration, delegating scope issues to the arbitrator, and waiving any right to arbitrate as a class. The district court denied the motion to compel arbitration.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed. In a very thorough opinion, the court found Toyota had no right to enforce the arbitration agreement, and therefore it was not necessary to consider whether Toyota had waived that right by participating in litigation.
The first legal issue the court addressed was whether to enforce the delegation clause in the arbitration agreement. The purchase agreement stated that the parties would arbitrate “any claim or dispute about the interpretation and scope of this Arbitration Clause,” and Toyota argued that whether a non-signatory could compel arbitration was essentially a question of scope. The court concluded that there was not the necessary “clear and unmistakable evidence” that the plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate arbitrability with Toyota. (I take issue with this part of the opinion because it seems premised on the later conclusion that Toyota has no right to arbitrate under the agreement. It would be simpler to rely on the default proposition, stated most recently in Granite Rock, that it is always for the court to determine whether an arbitration agreement exists at all.)
Having concluded that the court could properly address the merits of the dispute, the Ninth Circuit methodically destroyed Toyota’s arguments that it was entitled to compel arbitration under California’s equitable estoppel doctrine. There are only two ways for a non-signatory to enforce an arbitration clause in California: 1) when the signatory’s claims rely on terms of the agreement containing the arbitration clause; and 2) when the signatory alleges concerted misconduct by the non-signatory and another signatory that is “intimately connected” with the agreement containing the arbitration clause.
The court concluded Toyota had not shown the first type of equitable estoppel, because the plaintiffs’ claims against Toyota were not sufficiently intertwined with their purchase agreements. The court noted that the complaint never even referenced the purchase agreements. With respect to the plaintiffs’ implied warranty claim, the purchase agreements clarified the dealer was not a party to the manufacturer’s warranty. Therefore, the warranty claim against Toyota was not intertwined with the purchase agreements. Similarly, though plaintiffs asserted breach of contract against Toyota, it was based on their alleged status as third-party beneficiaries to the contracts between the dealers and Toyota, and therefore did not relate to their purchase agreements. The court also clarified that plaintiffs’ requested remedies were immaterial to an equitable estoppel analysis, only their claims were relevant. (Toyota had argued that because the plaintiffs sought revocation of the purchase, which implicates the purchase agreements, they should be equitably estopped from avoiding arbitration.)
Finally, the court concluded Toyota had not show the second type of equitable estoppel. It found the plaintiffs did not allege collusion between the dealerships and Toyota, and even if they had, that collusion was not connected to the purchase agreements at all, which is necessary for application of equitable estoppel.
This opinion is interesting because it provides another analysis of the nexus required between claims and an arbitration agreement to prove equitable estoppel. It is also interesting because it shows what kind of fallout results from a major change in the law. Before the 2011 decision in Concepcion, many states refused to enforce waivers of class arbitration. So, frequently counsel for defendants like Toyota did not try to enforce that class waiver (by virtue of enforcing the arbitration agreement). But, everything changed with first the Stolt-Nielsen and then the Concepcion decisions, and multiple defendants have made very tardy arguments in favor of arbitration (individual arbitration, in particular) to take advantage of those changes in the law. Some have failed, like Toyota in this case, this defendant in the 11th Cir, and the defendant in Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, __ F.3d __, 2012 WL 6684748 (9th Cir. Dec. 26, 2012). On the other hand, some have been successful, like this defendant in the 4th Cir. , and the defendant in Chassen v. Fidelity Nat’l Fin., Inc., 2013 WL 265228 (D.N.J. Jan. 23, 2013). That mix of recent decisions show it is probably worth it for defendants to move to belatedly enforce arbitration agreements prohibiting class actions. It also shows how important it is to have consistent case law that parties can rely on in making strategic decisions about litigation.