Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 22PSCV00600, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV00600, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 22PSCV00600 Hearing Date: January 18, 2024 Dept: G

Plaintiff Alma Coronado’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration

Respondent: Defendant Nissan North America, Inc.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Alma Coronado’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

This is a lemon law action. In March 2021, Plaintiff Alma Coronado leased a new 2021 Nissan Sentra and alleges the existence of an express written contract with Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) in which Nissan undertook to preserve or maintain the utility or performance of Coronado’s vehicle and provide compensation if there was a failure in such utility or performance. Coronado alleges the vehicle’s continuously variable transmission was defective.

On June 17, 2022, Coronado filed a complaint against Nissan, KAB Group Investments, Inc. (KAB Group), and Does 1-10, alleging (1) violation of the Song-Beverly Act – breach of express warranty, (2) misrepresentation, (3) concealment, and (4) negligent repair.

On October 27, 2022, Nissan filed a motion to compel arbitration of Coronado’s claims. On February 6, 2023, the court granted Nissan’s motion.

On June 30, 2023, Coronado filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order compelling arbitration. On July 31, the court denied Coronado’s motion.

On October 13, 2023, Coronado filed the present motion. A hearing on the motion is set for January 18, 2024, along with an OSC Re: Arbitration Completion.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Coronado’s request for judicial notice of trial court records in Kielar v. Superior Court (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 614, is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS

For the second time, Coronado moves for the court to reconsider its previous order granting Nissan’s motion to compel arbitration because of a new change in the law. For the following reasons and for the same reasons previously noted, the court DENIES Coronado’s motion.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 sets out two means by which a party can seek reconsideration of a prior trial court order. First, “[w]hen 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).) Second, “A party who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or part, or granted conditionally or on terms, may make a subsequent application for the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, in which case it shall be shown by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (b).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 “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, or for the renewal of a previous motion, whether the order deciding the previous matter or motion is interim or final. No application to reconsider any order or for the renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to this section.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (e).)

Discussion

In this case, Coronado seeks reconsideration of the court’s order to compel arbitration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (c). But as the court noted in previously denying Coronado’s motion for reconsideration, this subdivision does not provide authority for Coronado to bring a motion for reconsideration. Instead, it states “[i]f 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).) This provision merely codifies the court’s inherent power to reconsider prior rulings on its own motion and does not authorize parties to file written motions on this ground. (See Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1108.) And for the same reasons noted previously, Coronado’s motion is untimely pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (a).

Last, to the extent Coronado invites the court to exercise its discretion to reconsider the previous order, the court declines to do so. Accordingly, Coronado’s motion is DENIED.