Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV04681, Date: 2022-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV04681    Hearing Date: October 4, 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. This matter was initially set for hearing on September 1, 2022.  However, the Court’s records show that on August 31, 2022, the hearing on the motion was continued to October 4, 2022.  As of September 28, 2022, Plaintiff has not filed notice of the continued hearing date with proof of service on all parties that have appeared in the action.  There is no evidence that notice of the instant hearing date was given to 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’s motion to be relieved as counsel was denied on August 25, 2022, in part because the Court’s records showed that Plaintiff filed the complaint in pro per, and since that time, no substitution of attorney form was ever filed providing that Comley was representing Plaintiff.  The Court notes that Comley then filed a substitution of attorney form on August 31, 2022, and re-filed the motion to be relieved as counsel, which is set for hearing on October 5, 2022.  To the extent Plaintiff wishes to oppose that motion, a motion for reconsideration is not required. 

            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 4^th day of October 2022