Judge: Eddie C. Sturgeon, Case: 37-2020-00036081-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-10-30 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 30, 2023

10/30/2023  08:15:00 AM  C-67 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Eddie C Sturgeon

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2020-00036081-CU-BC-CTL RED FIT LLC VS MG CONSTRUCTION PROS LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Reconsideration, 08/29/2023

Defendant MG Construction Pros, LLC's Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED.

The agreement released all claims: 'arising under or relating . . . any . . . agreement entered into between the parties on or before the date of this Agreement . . . or any other agreement or any acts or omissions of the Franchisor Parties occurring before the date of this Agreement[.]' (ROA 112, Ex. 4.) After considering the decisions issued in Michigan state court and AAA arbitration, the court's prior order found that the release applied here. (ROA 138.) Defendant argues that because Plaintiffs' first and third causes of action for breach of contract are based on construction contracts entered into on October 23, 2018 and April 29, 2019-both dates prior to November 12, 2019-that the release applies to any claims based on those contracts. Plaintiff argues that this is incorrect and that the release should not be construed to immunize Defendant against any contract claim that might arise after November 12, 2019 if based on an earlier entered contract. However, based on the contractual language and the interpretation of the AAA arbitrator, the release is broad enough to do just that.

Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims necessarily arise under and relate to agreements entered into between the Franchisor Parties and Plaintiffs before the date of the release was entered. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is granted and the court will issue a modified ruling dismissing the first and third causes of action for breach of contract.

In opposition, Plaintiffs also argue that the court should reconsider its order, but to find that that issue preclusion does not actually apply under Vandenburg v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 815. But Plaintiffs' request for reconsideration is untimely and procedurally improper. If Plaintiffs desired reconsideration on the grounds they state, they were required to have filed a motion within 10 days of notice of entry of the order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008(a).) Plaintiffs did not do so and the court will not grant reconsideration based on an opposition. In any case, the court agrees with Defendant that Vandenburg is inapposite.

The motion is granted.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3015776  2