Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 20STCV38046, Date: 2023-01-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV38046    Hearing Date: January 20, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Performance Team, LLC (“Moving Defendant”)

The Court has reviewed the moving papers.  No opposition papers were filed.  Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of an employment relationship.  The currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges: (1) civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”).  On August 12, 2022, Moving Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration (the “Arbitration Motion”) that was scheduled to be heard by the Court on November 10, 2022.  On November 9, 2022, Plaintiff and Moving Defendant (the “Parties”) filed a Notice of Settlement and Request to Stay Action (the “Settlement Notice”).  The Settlement Notice provided that the Parties had reached a preliminary agreement to settle this matter and requested that the Arbitration Motion be taken off calendar and that the matter be stayed pending the approval of the Parties’ settlement agreement.  The Settlement Notice was entered on November 10, 2022.  On November 10, 2022, the Court issued a minute order acknowledging that the Parties had settled the case and adopting the Court’s tentative ruling denying the Arbitration Motion.  Plaintiff served Moving Defendant with notice of the November 10, 2022 order on December 8, 2022.

On December 19, 2022, Moving Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration (the “Motion”).  The Motion asks that the Court modify its November 10, 2022 order to reflect that the Arbitration Motion had been taken off calendar pursuant to the Settlement Notice before the hearing.

DISCUSSION

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.)

            The Motion is procedurally compliant and sets forth proper grounds for relief.  As the Arbitration Motion had been withdrawn by the time of the November 10, 2022 hearing, the Court’s November 10, 2022 order ruling on its merits was in error.  For this reason and because it is unopposed, the Court GRANTS the Motion.  (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)  The Court’s November 10, 2022 order will be modified, nunc pro tunc, to reflect that the Arbitration Motion was taken off calendar, and the analysis and ruling on the merits of the Arbitration Motion will be stricken from the modified order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

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 hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. 

  Dated this 20th day of January 2023