Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21STCV10177, Date: 2023-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV10177    Hearing Date: April 4, 2023    Dept: 74

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT 

DEPARTMENT 74 

MOVING PARTIES:               Plaintiff LaFollette Marquis Henderson IV

RESPONDING PARTY:        Defendant Comms. Retail, LLC

Motion for Rehearing and New Order

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply in connection with this motion.

BACKGROUND

            This matter arises from an employment dispute. Plaintiff LaFollette Marquis Henderson IV filed his complaint on March 16, 2021, alleging multiple causes of action under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

            On December 16, 2022, there was a remote hearing on a renewed motion to compel arbitration. Defendant Comms. Retail, LLC was the moving party.

            That morning, Plaintiff’s counsel appeared via LACourt Connect and entered the digital waiting room. However, due to a technical difficulty, Plaintiff’s counsel did not gain access to the hearing, meaning Plaintiff’s counsel could not contest the court’s tentative ruling.

            On December 20, 2022, the court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application and request for rehearing without prejudice to filing a noticed motion.

            On December 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed this motion for rehearing and new order (Motion).

LEGAL STANDARD 

            “The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)

DISCUSSION 

            The court notes that Plaintiff has not provided any statutory basis for this motion. However, as Defendant has pointed out, the court may grant Plaintiff relief based on Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). Due to a technical difficulty, as opposed to any lack of diligence, Plaintiff did not get to contest the court’s tentative ruling during the hearing on December 16, 2022. Accordingly, the court will relieve Plaintiff of the December 16 order and reschedule the hearing so that Plaintiff can contest the court’s ruling as to Defendant’s renewed motion to compel arbitration. While the court notes that this motion lacks a copy of Plaintiff’s opposition as required by the Code of Civil Procedure section 473, the opposition is on file with the court. Lastly, at the rescheduled hearing, the court will only consider Defendant’s moving papers, Plaintiff’s opposition, Defendant’s reply, and the parties’ respective oral arguments.

CONCLUSION

              Based on the foregoing, the court relieves Plaintiff of the court’s December 16 ruling and reschedules the hearing to a later date.

              Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED:  ¿April 4, 2023

_____________________________ 

Colin P. Leis 

Judge of the Superior Court