Bhatt

DISCUSSION

Bhatt argues that the trial court erred in allowing BMW to invoke the arbitration clause in Bhatt’s sales contract with the Dealership because BMW was not a party to that contract. “ ‘Generally speaking, one must be a party to an arbitration agreement to be bound by it or invoke it.’ [Citations.]” (JSM Tuscany, LLC v. Superior Court (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1222, 1236 (JSM Tuscany).) “[W]hether and to what extent nonsignatories to an arbitration agreement can enforce the arbitration provision is a question of law, which we review independently.” (Gamma Eta Chapter of Pi Kappa Alpha v. Helvey (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1090, 1097.)

Bhatt’s October 2023 notice of appeal purported to appeal from the order confirming the arbitration award and the order granting BMW’s motion to compel arbitration. Neither order is appealable. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1294; Cooper v. Lavely & Singer Professional Corp. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1, 10; Muao v. Grosvenor Properties, Ltd. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1088.) However, both orders may be challenged in an appeal from the subsequent judgment, which was entered on November 15, 2023. (Muao, at p. 1088.) Because BMW does not object to the appeal…