Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 24VECV03198, Date: 2025-01-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24VECV03198    Hearing Date: January 8, 2025    Dept: 45

SHOCHAT V. PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., ET AL.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Date of Hearing:          1/6/25                                     Trial Date:       11/18/25

Department:               W                                             Case No.:         24VECV03198

Moving Party:             Defendant Ed Carroll Motor Company, Inc.

Responding Party:       Plaintiff Yariv Shochat

BACKGROUND

This is a Song-Beverly action. On July 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Porsche Woodland Hills, and Ed Carroll Motor Company, Inc.

On October 22, 2024, the Court denied the motion to compel arbitration brought by defendant Ed Carroll Motor Company, Inc.

On November 4, 2024, defendant Ed Carroll Motor Company, Inc. filed the motion for reconsideration regarding the motion to compel arbitration.

[Tentative] Ruling

1.      Defendant Ed Carroll Motor Company, Inc.’s Motion for Reconsideration is granted.

analysis

A.      Timeliness of Motion

A motion for reconsideration must be made “…within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order…” (Code Civ. Pro., §1008, subd. (a).) This is extended under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, subdivision (c) where service is made by mail, fax, or overnight delivery.  (Forrest v. Dept. of Corps. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 183, 203.)

Here, the minute order was issued on 10/22/24. The clerk served it by mail the same day. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was filed on 11/4/24. Thus, the motion is timely, as it was filed within 10 days after service of the written notice of entry of order plus five more court days to account for service by electronic mail. (Code Civ. Pro., § 1010.6.)

B.      New or different facts, circumstances, or law

The moving party must present new facts, circumstances, or law to grant a motion for reconsideration. (See Code Civ. Pro., § 1008, subd. (a); see also Mink v. Super. Ct. (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1342.) The party seeking reconsideration of an order shall state by affidavit what application was made before, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to be shown. (Code Civ. Pro., § 1008, subd. (a).) Further, “…the party seeking reconsideration must provide not only new evidence but also a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce that evidence at an earlier time.” (Glade v. Glade (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1457.) The legislative intent was to restrict motions for reconsideration to circumstances where a party offers the court some fact or circumstance not previously considered and some valid reason for not offering it earlier. (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.)

Here, Defendant advances the declaration of Matthew Behboud, its counsel. Behboud attests that on October 22, 2024, Judge Keeny issued the minute order denying the motion to compel arbitration and that on October 31, 2024, the California Supreme Court in Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. S274625 held that the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act does not apply to used vehicles if the used dealership did not issue its own warranty and if the new car warranty was not issued at the time of the used vehicle’s sale. (Decl. Behboud, ¶ 4, 5.)

Defendant argues that given this new law, Plaintiff’s Song-Beverly claims are barred because it is undisputed that the subject vehicle was a pre-owned vehicle, and that Ed Carroll did not provide a dealership warranty, and that although the subject vehicle was still within the manufacturer's warranty, the warranty was not issued at the time of sale. Therefore, there no longer remains a risk that if Plaintiff were to arbitrate his claims against Ed Carroll and litigate his claims against the Porsche defendants, that it will result in duplicative or conflicting rulings.

            Plaintiff raises various counter arguments, primarily asserting that its main claim against Ed Carroll survives even after the Rodriguez decision because it is based on Section 1795.5 of the Song-Beverly Act, which covers used vehicles.  The court note that this cause of action is not plead in the operative pleading.   Nonetheless, for reasons previously stated in the original decision, the court has already rejected plaintiff’s contention that there was no valid arbitration agreement between it and Ed Carroll, or that such arbitration agreement was fraudulently induced.  The only reason the court denied the motion to compel arbitration was due to the concern of conflicting results  if the court were to compel its claims against Ed Carroll to arbitration and to retain the claims against the manufacturers. Without passing on the validity of plaintiff’s claims against Ed Carroll post-Rodriguez, or whether it will need to amend its complaint, the court is now persuaded that the specter of conflicting results is significantly less.   There is little in the pleadings or in plaintiff’s opposition brief that persuades this court that plaintiff will be able to establish claims against the Porsche defendants based on this used car sale.   The court therefore grants the motion to compel arbitration of the claims against Ed Carroll.  The court does not stay the claims against the remaining defendants.  

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is granted and the claims against Ed Carrroll are ordered to binding arbitration.   The request for sanctions is denied.