Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 21STCV07668, Date: 2024-01-17 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.

Case Number: 21STCV07668    Hearing Date: January 17, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Hyundai Motor America, Inc. (“Moving Defendant”)

The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.  

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of the sale of an allegedly defective vehicle (the “Vehicle”) that was manufactured by Defendant.  On February 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) alleging: (1) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Act; and (2) breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Act.

On December 2, 2021, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration (the “Arbitration Motion”) and ordered that this matter proceed to arbitration on the grounds that Moving Defendant was entitled to enforce an arbitration agreement contained in the sales contract that Plaintiff entered into with the dealership that sold the Vehicle under Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486 (“Felisilda”).

On October 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration (the “Motion”) that requests that the Court reconsider its December 2, 2021 order granting the Arbitration Motion due to a change in law regarding the enforcement of arbitration agreements by nonsignatories.   

DISCUSSION

Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1008, subdivision (a), 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.  (CCP § 1008, subd. (a).)  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.  (Id.)  A party seeking reconsideration must also provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce the evidence at an earlier time.  (Id.)

Under CCP section 1008, subdivision (c), 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.  (CCP § 1008, subd. (c).)  A trial court intending to exercise this power must provide the parties notice that it may do so and a reasonable opportunity to litigate the question.  (Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1233, 1248.)  A procedurally improper motion may inspire the trial court to reconsider its previous decision on its own motion.  (See id. at 1249; In re Marriage of Barthold (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1307-08.) 

The Motion argues that the Court should reconsider its order granting the Arbitration Order in light of the Second District Court of Appeal’s 2023 holding in Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1324 in which the appellate court issued a ruling that diverges from Felisilda. 

The Court finds that the Motion is procedurally improper, since it was filed more than 10 days after service of notice of the Arbitration Motion.  The Court therefore DENIES the Motion.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

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 17th day of January 2024