Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 21STCV23117, Date: 2023-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV23117    Hearing Date: October 12, 2023    Dept: 76

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein.  Counsel must contact the staff in Department 76 to inform the Court whether they wish to submit on the tentative, or to argue the matter.  As required by Rule 3.1308(a), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and argue.

Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776.

Per Rule of Court 3.1308, if notice of intention to appear is not given, the Court may adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.

            Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Ford Motor Company has failed to repair the subject vehicle to conform to applicable warranties. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Autonation Ford Torrance negligently repaired the subject vehicle.

            The Court granted Defendants Ford Motor Company and Autonation Ford Torrance motion to compel arbitration and to stay this action.

            Plaintiffs move for reconsideration of the Court’s November 1, 2021 order compelling arbitration.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiffs Guadalupe Salinas Jr. and Gabby Salinas’ motion for reconsideration  of the Court’s November 1, 2021 order compelling arbitration is DENIED. 

ANALYSIS

Motion For Reconsideration

            Plaintiffs move for reconsideration of the Court’s November 1, 2021 order compelling arbitration. The notice of ruling was served by mail on that same date. This motion was filed on June 12, 2023—588 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.

            Further, the Court in its discretion declines to reconsider the motion compelling arbitration, despite subsequent published opinions which conflict with Felisilda.

            The Court notes that both parties have disobeyed this Court’s order compelling arbitration. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they have attempted to proceed with arbitration, and this Court has no intention of rewarding Plaintiffs for disobeying the November 1, 2021 order.

            The motion for reconsideration is DENIED.