Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCV10749, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV10749    Hearing Date: September 14, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: September 14, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Reconsideration

Moving Party: Plaintiff Jaime Beltran Ortiz

Responding Party: Defendant Hyundai Motor America

T/R:     PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS GRANTED.

PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, reply and supplemental briefing.

BACKGROUND

This is a lemon law action arising from Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2019 Hyundai Kona, manufactured and distributed by Defendant. On August 18, 2021, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.

ANALYSIS

A non-prevailing party may make a motion to reconsider and enter a different order under the following conditions: (1) brought before the same judge that make the order sought to be reconsidered; (2) made within 10 days after service upon the party of the notice of entry of the order; (3) based on new or different facts, circumstances or law than those before the court at the time of the original ruling; (4) supported by a declaration stating the previous order, by which judge it was made, and the new or different facts, circumstances or law claimed to exist; and (5) the motion must be made and decided before entry of judgment.  (CCP § 1008.)

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Court’s August 18, 2021 order granting Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff asserts that reconsideration is necessary given the Second District of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Ochoa v. Ford (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1324.

This motion first came for hearing on August 17, 2023. The Court tentatively denied the motion and ordered supplemental briefing from the parties on the newly issued Third District Court of Appeal opinion in Kielar v. Superior Court (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 614, and the timeliness and jurisdiction of this motion.

Only Plaintiff filed a supplemental brief. Plaintiff argues that the Court should reconsider its prior order because the Third District, which heard Felisilda, in Kielar specifically rejected the reasoning in Felisilda. Plaintiff emphasizes that the Court may reconsider its own orders any time before judgment and provides statutory authority stating that the Court has jurisdiction over matters relating to the arbitration agreement.

The Court will reconsider its prior order compelling arbitration as Felisilda has been rejected by both the Third and Second Districts. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.