Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2022-00029922-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-01-26 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 25, 2024

01/26/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-70 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Carolyn Caietti

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00029922-CU-BC-CTL YOUNG VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiffs Randall Young, Sr. and LaTonya Cantu's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

Plaintiffs' reply request for judicial notice is granted and notice will be taken to the extent permitted.

As background, on May 12, 2023, the Court granted Defendants Nissan North America, Inc. and Mossy Nissan El Cajon's unopposed Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings. (ROA 37 – Minute Order dated May 12, 2023; ROA 36 – Notice of Ruling.) Per that ruling, the Court, in its discretion, refused to consider Plaintiffs' late opposition (filed two-court days after Defendants' reply deadline without any explanation or seeking relief). (Ibid.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs 'did not prove a ground of denial, challenge the authority of Felisilda, supra or oppose the motion.' (Ibid.) The Court ordered the parties to arbitration and stayed the case. (Ibid.) Plaintiffs did not file a writ. Over three months later, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for reconsideration of the Court's arbitration order.

The Court has jurisdiction to hear this motion. (Pinela v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 227, 237-39 (holding a trial court had jurisdiction to reconsider its order compelling arbitration).) Plaintiffs ask the Court to reconsider its ruling ordering arbitration pursuant to C.C.P. section 1008(c) ['If a court at any time determines that there has been a change of law that warrants it to reconsider a prior order it entered, it may do so on its own motion and enter a different order.']. The Court declines to do so. Plaintiffs did not: (i) oppose the underlying motion; or (ii) challenge Felisilda v. FCA US, LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486 at the time the Court made the arbitration ruling. There also has not been a change in the law. As Plaintiffs acknowledge, Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1324 (Ochoa) was decided and available case law when the ruling was made. At most, there is a conflict in the law.

This motion is an attempt to undo a ruling for a motion Plaintiffs failed to oppose, which Plaintiffs still do not explain.

For these reasons, the motion is DENIED.

If the tentative ruling is confirmed without modification, the minute order will be the Court's final ruling.

Plaintiffs are ordered to serve written notice of the Court's final ruling on all appearing parties by January 30, 2024, unless all parties submit on the tentative ruling or waive notice at the hearing.

Defendants are reminded to comply with Department 70's Policies and Procedures and to provide courtesy copies of all motion paperwork.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3000417  39 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  YOUNG VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC [IMAGED]  37-2022-00029922-CU-BC-CTL Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3000417  39