Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 22STCV00253, Date: 2023-11-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV00253 Hearing Date: November 16, 2023 Dept: 55
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
The motion is denied.
On 6/17/22, plaintiffs RUTH ARRIAGA and MARTINA
MARROQUIN (“plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO.,
INC. (“Defendant”), alleging that, on October 6, 2019, plaintiffs purchased a
new 2019 Honda CR-V, having defective, irreparable, computerized
driver-assisting safety systems, concealed from plaintiffs, which cause
dangerous driving conditions. Based on the alleged defects, Plaintiff sued Defendant
under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act for breach of the express and
implied warranties that Defendant furnished to Plaintiff in connection with the
purchase of the Subject Vehicle.
Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the
3/13/23 ruling compelling arbitration. On 6/21/23, Defendant had filed an
opposition to an Ex Parte matter addressing the issues. The Court subsequently
moved the hearing to 11/16/23 and ordered Plaintiff to give notice.
Lack of Notice
The Court notes that Plaintiff did not file proof of
service demonstrating that Plaintiff provided notice of the continued hearing
date to Defendant as required by the 10/9/23 order.
Reconsideration
Plaintiffs contend the Court should reconsider the
prior order on its own motion because of recent case law including Ford
Motor Warranty Cases (Ochoa, et al.) (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1324. (Mot.
1:18-20.)
Court orders granting or denying requests for
reconsideration are reviewed for abuse of discretion. E.g., Monroy v. City of L. A.
(2008) 164 Cal. App. 4th 248, 265; County
of L. A. v. James (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 253, 256; Forrest v. Dept. of Corps. (2007) 150
Cal. App. 4th 183, 204 (court did not abuse its discretion in denying … motion
for reconsideration….”), disapproved on
other grounds by Shalant v. Girardi (2011) 51 Cal. 4th 1164,
1172; White v. Lieberman (2002)
103 Cal. App. 4th 210, 219-20 (court did
not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for reconsider that was entirely
devoid of new or different facts, circumstances or law, and simply reiterated
arguments made in a prior opposition.).
Judges have inherent authority to reconsider rulings,
on their own motion, to correct errors, even when prompted to do so by a motion
filed in violation of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1008. E.g., Boschetti v. Pac. Bay Invs.
Inc. (2019) 32 Cal. App. 5th 1059, 1070 (although prompted by parties’
arguments, court properly reconsidered on its own motion, based on its
realization the ruling was erroneous).
Here, the Court concludes that the prior ruling was proper. As noted in the 3/13/23 minute order of prior
Judge Mackey, the Complaint expressly alleged the dealership agreement (the one
with the arbitration provision) and did not completely omit such reference as
Lemon Law complaints generally do. The
pleading therefore fits within opinions upholding arbitration compelling. Alternatively, assuming the prior Court’s
ruling was error under some case law, it still was correct under another line
of authority (Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486), such
that there was discretion as to which line to follow.
Conclusion
The motion is denied.