Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 22PSCV00546, Date: 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00546    Hearing Date: January 5, 2024    Dept: K

Background   

Plaintiff Juan Franco (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

On or about August 31, 2016, Plaintiff purchased a 2016 Ford F-250, VIN No. 1FT7W2BT5GEB68780 (“subject vehicle”). Plaintiff alleges that the subject vehicle suffers from various defects and that the subject vehicle has not been repaired after a reasonable number of attempts.

On June 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Ford Motor Company (“FMC”), Performance Ford and Does 1-10 for:

1.                  Violation of Subdivision (d) of Civil Code Section 1793.2

2.                  Violation of Subdivision (b) of Civil Code Section 1793.2

3.                  Violation of Subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code Section 1793.2

4.                  Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Civil Code Section 1791.1; Section 1794; Section 1795.5)

5.                  Negligent Repair

On February 2, 2023, the court granted FMC’s and Performance Ford’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and ordered the case stayed pending completion of binding arbitration.

A Post-Arbitration Status Conference is set for January 5, 2023.

Legal Standard

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (c).)

Discussion

Plaintiff moves the court, per Code of Civil Procedure § 1008, subdivision (c) and the court’s inherent constitutional authority, to reconsider and reverse its February 2, 2023 order with respect to its granting of FMC’s and Performance Ford’s Motion to Compel Arbitration.

The court declines to issue any ruling, on the basis that the motion is not procedurally proper. “While a party has the right to ‘communicat[e] the view to a court that it should reconsider a prior ruling’ (Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1108), the party should not ‘file a written motion to reconsider’ if it cannot satisfy the procedural requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 (35 Cal.4th at p. 1108). ‘The court need not rule on any suggestion that it should reconsider a previous ruling . . .’ (Ibid.)” (Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 96, 102, fn. 10 [emphasis in original].)

Nevertheless, the court will hear from Plaintiff as to whether the Court’s February 2, 2023 Order should be vacated at the Post-Arbitration Status Conference.