Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCP03407, Date: 2023-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 22STCP03407    Hearing Date: April 18, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Respondent Wawanesa General Insurance Company

RESPONDING PARTIES:     Petitioners Cheryl Lyn Martinez and Joyce Robles

Motion for Reconsideration

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

DISCUSSION

Respondent Wawanesa General Insurance Company (“Respondent”) moves for an order reconsidering the court’s December 8, 2022 order granting the Petition to Compel Arbitration filed by petitioners Cheryl Lyn Martinez and Joyce Robles (“Petitioners”) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008.  Alternatively, Respondent requests that the court (1) vacate its December 8, 2022 order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128, or (2) hold an evidentiary hearing on whether Petitioners are entitled to compel arbitration.  Respondent moves for this relief on the ground that the court must vacate its order compelling the parties to arbitration because the issue as to whether Petitioners are entitled to obtain coverage under the policy issued by Respondent is outside the scope of the arbitration clause and contrary to the explicit terms of the policy and statute.  (Mot., p. 3:23-4:10.) 

First, the court denies Respondent’s motion for reconsideration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008.

“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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a).)  The moving party must submit an affidavit showing “what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.”  (Ibid.)  “Facts of which a party seeking reconsideration was aware at the time of the original ruling are not ‘new or different facts,’ as would support a trial court’s grant of reconsideration.  [Citation.]  To merit reconsideration, a party must also provide a satisfactory reason why it was unable to present its ‘new’ evidence at the original hearing.”  (People v. Safety National Casualty Corp. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 959, 974 [internal citation omitted].)

Respondent has not submitted an affidavit showing “new or different facts, circumstances, or law” in support of its motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a) [emphasis added].)  Although Respondent submits a declaration stating that reconsideration is warranted because the court did not address certain issues, Respondent has not (1) identified new or different facts, circumstances, or law, that were not known at the time the court issued the December 8, 2022 order granting the petition to compel arbitration, or (2) provided a satisfactory reason as to why it was unable to present this evidence at the original hearing.  (Knapp Decl., ¶¶ 22-23; People, supra, 186 Cal.App.4th at p. 974 [moving party must present new facts and satisfactory reason why it was unable to present new evidence at the hearing].)  The court therefore finds that Respondent has not met its burden to show that the court should reconsider its order pursuant to section 1008.

Second, the court denies Respondent’s request that the court vacate the December 8, 2022 order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.

The court has the power “[t]o amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(8).)  “‘This provision is consistent with and codifies the courts’ traditional and inherent judicial power to do whatever is necessary and appropriate, in the absence of controlling legislation, to ensure the prompt, fair, and orderly administration of justice.’”  (Kinney v. Clark (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 724, 740.)

Respondent bases this alternative request for relief on the same grounds set forth in connection with its request that the court reconsider the December 8, 2022 order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008.  “‘The name of a motion is not controlling, and, regardless of the name, a motion asking the trial court to decide the same matter previously ruled on is a motion for reconsideration under Civil Procedure section 1008.’”  (J.W. v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 1142, 1171; Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (e) [“This section specifies the court’s jurisdiction with regard to applications for reconsideration of its orders and renewals of previous motions, and applies to all applications to reconsider any order of a judge or court . . . .  No application to reconsider any order . . . may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to this section.”].)  Thus, although Respondent cites section 128 in support of its alternative request for relief, such a request is instead governed by section 1008.

The court has determined, as set forth above, that Respondent failed to establish the existence of new or different facts, circumstances, or law that warrant reconsideration of the December 8, 2022 order as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1008.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subds. (a), (e).)

Finally, the court denies Respondent’s request that the court set an evidentiary hearing.

Respondent contends that an evidentiary hearing is required to determine whether Petitioners “are entitled to Uninsured Motorists Arbitration and issues related thereto, including, but not limited to, whether Petitioners breached the ‘Duties After an Accident or a Loss’ and ‘Fraud and Misrepresentation’ General Terms of the policy.”  (Mot., p. 9:19-23.)  Respondent’s request that the court set an evidentiary hearing on these issues is a request that the court reconsider the issue ruled on by the court in the December 8, 2022 order—i.e., whether Petitioners are entitled to compel arbitration—and is therefore governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 1008.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (e); J.W., supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 1171.)  However, as set forth above, Respondent has not met its burden of establishing that reconsideration is warranted under section 1008 since Respondent has not submitted an affidavit showing that new or different facts, circumstances, or law warrant reconsideration. 

Because the court has concluded that Respondent has not met its burden of showing that new or different facts, circumstances, or law warrant reconsideration of the court’s December 8, 2022 order, the court denies Respondent’s motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subds. (a), (e).)

ORDER

The court denies respondent Wawanesa General Insurance Company’s motion for reconsideration.

The court orders petitioners Cheryl Lyn Martinez and Joyce Robles to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  April 18, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court