Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV24107, Date: 2023-12-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV24107    Hearing Date: February 7, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On October 3, 2023, Plaintiff Scott Canales filed this action for declaratory relief against Defendants Lockton Companies, LLC – Pacific Series, Lockton Investment Advisors, LLC, and Lockton Partners, LLC.

            Plaintiff filed this action to establish that he may freely compete against Defendants by soliciting clients from his former employment for Defendants, despite restrictive covenants contained in agreements between the parties. Plaintiff alleges that the covenants are void and unenforceable under California law. Plaintiff also alleges that the forum selection provisions are unenforceable because they violate California’s public policy.

            Defendants moved to dismiss based on forum selection clauses within the applicable contracts. The Court denied this motion on December 6, 2023.

            On December 22, 2023, Defendants filed the instant motion for reconsideration of the December 6 order. Plaintiff filed his opposition on January 25, 2024. Defendants filed their reply on January 31, 2024.

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).)

Additionally, “the trial court retains the inherent authority to change its decision at any time prior to the entry of judgment.” (Darling v. Kritt (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1148, 1156.) “[S]ection 1008 does not govern the court's ability, on its own motion, to reevaluate its own interim rulings.” (Ibid.) “[T]he only requirement of the court is that it exercise ‘due consideration’ before modifying, amending, or revoking its prior orders.” (Id. at p. 1157.)

DISCUSSION

            Defendants request reconsideration of the Court’s December 6 order because the California Supreme Court has granted review of a similar decision in Giblin v. Lockton Cos., LLC – Pacific Series, et al., No. 22STCV39876. Defendants contend that the Supreme Court’s decision in Giblin will provide dispositive guidance on the enforcement of the forum selection clause at issue here. Defendants seek revocation of the December 6 order so as to vacate the deadline for them to file a petition for writ of mandate challenging the order.

            However, according to Defendants, the deadline to file the writ petition was January 10, 2024. The deadline will have passed by the time this motion is heard. In fact, Defendants have already filed their petition. Therefore, the issue is moot.

            Defendants also request a stay pending the resolution of Giblin. However, in granting the petition for review of Giblin, the Supreme Court deferred the matter pending resolution of a different case, EpicentRx, Inc. v. Superior Court (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 890. EpicentRx concerns whether a forum selection clause, requiring litigation in a jurisdiction with no right to a jury in civil cases, violates California’s public policy against pre-dispute jury waivers. That case does not concern a nonwaivable statutory right as is the case here. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court would reach a decision in Giblin with a dispositive effect on the present case. Additionally, as discussed above, Defendants have filed a writ petition with the Court of Appeal. If the Court of Appeal accepts the petition, it can issue a stay to the extent it deems necessary.  

CONCLUSION

            Defendants’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED.