Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV00707, Date: 2023-10-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00707    Hearing Date: October 17, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: October 17, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Reconsideration

Moving Party: Plaintiff Judith Randel

Responding Party: Defendant Nissan North America, Inc.

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 and reply.

BACKGROUND

This is a lemon law action arising from Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2019 Nissan Sentra, manufactured and distributed by Defendant. On December 12, 2022, 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 December 12, 2022 order granting Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff asserts that reconsideration is necessary given the decision by the Second District of the Court of Appeal in Ochoa v. Ford (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1324, which rejected the reasoning of Felisilda. The Third District Court of Appeal, which issued the decision in Felisilda, also has rejected Felisilda in Kielar v. Superior Court (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 614. Plaintiff emphasizes that the Court may reconsider its own orders any time before judgment; Plaintiff provides statutory authority stating that the Court has jurisdiction over matters relating to the arbitration agreement. In opposition, Defendant asserts the motion should be denied because it is untimely and because there is a split in authority. Kielar has reconciled this split.

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