Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 20STCV08729, Date: 2023-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV08729    Hearing Date: November 20, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On March 2, 2020, Plaintiffs Caroline Contreras and Robert C. Anaya filed this “lemon law” action against Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc. The complaint asserts five causes of action arising from violations of the Song-Beverly Act.

            On February 19, 2021, the Court granted Kia’s motion to compel arbitration. On October 19, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order in light of Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1324 (Ochoa) and other similar cases.

LEGAL STANDARD

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008(a).) “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.” (Id., subd. (c).)  

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiffs’ motion is untimely because it was made more than ten days after the Court’s order granting arbitration. Plaintiff also waited six months after the publication of Ochoa. Furthermore, Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486 has not been overturned. Ochoa and related cases represent a split in authority, and Ochoa is currently under review. (See Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 456; Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 8.1115.) It would be inefficient to return a case that was compelled to arbitration over two years ago back to court. For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is denied, and the Court declines to reconsider its order sua sponte.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED.