Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case 19STCV08863 2022-08-10 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Raffaello Santi and Serena Cenni-Santi (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)

RESPONDING PARTIES: Defendants Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”); Marat Grigorian and Armen Grigorian (the “Grigorian Defendants”) (collectively, “Defendants”)[1]

This action arises out of alleged injuries Plaintiffs suffered as a result of an automobile accident that occurred while Plaintiffs were receiving a ride from a driver using Lyft’s ride share mobile app. Plaintiffs initiated this action on March 14, 2019; the currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”), filed on December 21, 2020, alleges: (1) motor vehicle; (2) negligence; and (3) products liability.[2]

On April 11, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint (the “TAC Motion”). The proposed TAC alleged: (1) Lyft’s designation as a common carrier subject to the regulations of the California Public Utilities Commission (“PUC”) as a Transportation Network Company (“TNC”) permit holder; (2) a third cause of action for strict liability against all Defendants; and (3) Plaintiffs’ entitlement to exemplary damages for Defendants’ failure to comply with their highest duty as a common carrier and permitted PUC TNC. The Court denied the TAC Motion on June 10, 2022; the Court’s ruling was served on June 14, 2022. On June 24, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration (the “Motion”) asking that the Court reconsider its ruling on the TAC Motion.

When an application for an order has been made to a judge or to a court and refused in whole or in part, granted, or granted conditionally, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order, make application to the same judge or court that made the order to reconsider the matter and modify, amend or revoke the prior order. (CCP § 1008, subd. (a).) Under CCP section 1008, subdivision (a), a motion for reconsideration must be based on new or different facts, circumstances or law. (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212.) A party seeking reconsideration must also provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce the evidence at an earlier time. (Id.) Facts of which the party seeking reconsideration was aware of at the time of the original ruling are not “new or different.” (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690.) 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. A trial court has discretion with respect to granting a motion for reconsideration. (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at 212.)

In support of the Motion, Plaintiffs indicate that the new fact which was not included in the TAC Motion is one of Lyft’s responses to a request for admission. (Declaration of Joseph H. Low IV (“Low Decl.”) ¶ 4.) The Court finds that this information does not constitute “new facts, circumstances or law” to warrant reconsideration of the ruling on the TAC Motion. The new information identified in the Motion, Lyft’s discovery response, was served on January 10, 2020 and was therefore available to Plaintiffs when they filed the TAC Motion. (See Low Decl., Exhbit B.) Plaintiffs have not provided any explanation for the failure to present such information to support the TAC Motion.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative. If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org stating your intention to appear in person. The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date. This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] The Gregorians filed a joinder to Lyft’s opposition (the “Opposition”).

[2] On November 1, 2021, the Court granted Lyft’s motion for summary adjudication to the third cause of action.