Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 21STCV15913, Date: 2024-05-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV15913 Hearing Date: May 21, 2024 Dept: 76
Plaintiff Jose Delgadillo’s motion for reconsideration of the order compelling arbitration is DENIED.
ANALYSIS
Motion For Reconsideration
Discussion
On January 18, 2023, the Court granted Defendant Nissan North America, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration and stay this action. Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of that order based on the April 4, 2023 Court of Appeal decision in Ochoa v. Ford Motor Company which disagreed with Felisilda, upon which this Court relied in granting Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.
The notice of ruling was served by e-mail on January 27, 2023. This motion was filed and served on January 12, 2024—350 days after the Court’s order compelling arbitration was entered.
Regarding motions for
reconsideration, Civ. Proc. Code, § 1008 provides:
(a) When an application for an
order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part,
or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by
the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of
written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts,
circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made
the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior
order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what
application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions
were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed
to be shown.
(b) A party who originally made an
application for an order which was refused in whole or
part, or granted conditionally or on terms, may make a subsequent application
for the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, in which
case it shall be shown by affidavit what application was made before, when and
to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different
facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. For a failure to comply
with this subdivision, any order made on a subsequent application may be
revoked or set aside on ex parte motion.
(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.
(d) A violation of this section may
be punished as a contempt and with sanctions as allowed by Section 128.7. In addition, an order made contrary to this section may be
revoked by the judge or commissioner who made it, or vacated by a judge of the
court in which the action or proceeding is pending.
(e) This section specifies the
court’s jurisdiction with regard to applications for reconsideration of its
orders and renewals of previous motions, and applies to all applications to
reconsider any order of a judge or court, or for the renewal of a previous motion,
whether the order deciding the previous matter or motion is interim or final.
No application to reconsider any order or for the renewal of a previous motion
may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to this section.
(f) For the purposes of this
section, an alleged new or different law shall not include a later enacted
statute without a retroactive application.
(g) An order denying a motion for
reconsideration made pursuant to subdivision (a) is not separately appealable.
However, if the order that was the subject of a motion for reconsideration is
appealable, the denial of the motion for reconsideration is reviewable as part
of an appeal from that order.
(h) This section applies to all
applications for interim orders.
(Civ.
Proc. Code § 1008 [bold emphasis and underlining added].)
Here, because Plaintiffs were not the parties who originally brought the motion to compel arbitration, they cannot avail themselves of the limitless period set forth in Civ. Proc. Code, § 1008(b). Rather, they are parties affected by the Court’s grant of Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, and thus, are subject to the 10-day period. This motion is thus untimely.
Plaintiffs cannot bring a motion pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code, § 1008(c), because that section expressly applies only where a court on its own motion reconsiders a prior order.
Further, the Court in its discretion declines to reconsider the motion compelling arbitration on its own motion, despite subsequent published opinions which conflict with Felisilda. The Court also notes that the California Supreme Court granted review in Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1324 (Ochoa) on July 19, 2023. Moreover, despite other authority which conflicts with Felisilda, Plaintiff’s argument is that this Court committed an error of law. This is an issue for the appellate court, not a motion for reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration cannot correct judicial error. (Crotty v. Trader (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 765, 770-71.)
The Court notes that if the case is already in
arbitration, the Court has no jurisdiction to order it back into court. (See Brock v. Kaiser Found. Hosps. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1790, 1796 [court
only retains vestigial jurisdiction upon conclusion of arbitration].) On the other hand, if the parties have
not even commenced arbitration, this Court has no intention of rewarding
Plaintiffs for failing to exercise diligence in prosecuting the arbitration.
The
motion for reconsideration is DENIED.