Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV04681, Date: 2022-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV04681    Hearing Date: September 1, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff, Piero Valdizan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants, Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) and Fushun Wang for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.   

On August 8, 2022, Plaintiff, in pro per, filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration of Order dated July 28, 2022.  There are multiple issues with this motion. 

First, Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally defective.  Pursuant to CCP § 1005, all moving and supporting papers must be served and filed at least 16 court days prior to hearing.  There is no proof of service attached to the motion, or that has otherwise been filed with the Court, showing that the motion was served on all parties that have appeared in this action. 

Second, this action was stayed in its entirety following the granting of Defendant Uber’s motion to compel arbitration on August 25, 2021.  (Min. Order, Aug. 25, 2021.)  There are no orders in this case dated July 28, 2022, and Plaintiff is not actually seeking reconsideration of any court order pursuant to CCP § 1008.  Rather, Plaintiff’s motion appears to be an opposition to R. Alexander Comley’s (“Comley”) motion to be relieved as counsel that was filed on July 28, 2022.  Comley was purportedly Plaintiff’s counsel; however, as the Court noted at the hearing on Comley’s motion to be relieved on August 25, 2022, no substitution of attorney form was ever filed providing that Comley was representing Plaintiff.  The Court’s records show that Plaintiff filed the complaint and continued to represent himself in this matter in pro per.  Indeed, Plaintiff filed the instant motion in pro per. 

            Plaintiff’s motion is denied because there is no order to reconsider. 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 1^st day of September 2022