Judge: Sandy N. Leal, Case: 2022-01272098, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Reconsideration

Plaintiff Martina Flores de Espinoza’s Motion for Reconsideration of the 3-23-23 Order Granting Defendants’ Nissan North America, Inc. and H Greg Auto Buena Park LLC d/b/a H Greg Nissan Buena Park Motion to Compel Arbitration is DENIED. 

Plaintiff seeks an order rescinding the 3-23-23 Order compelling the case to arbitration based on the recent ruling in In Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1324 (Ochoa).  Ochoa declined to follow Felisilda v. FCA US, LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486, on which the Court’s 3-32-23 Order was based. 

A motion for reconsideration made by a party must be based on new or different facts, circumstances, or law than those before the court at the time of the original ruling. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a).) The motion must also be accompanied by an affidavit from the moving party that states: (1) what application was previously made; (2) when and to what judge; (3) what order was made; and (4) what new or different facts, circumstances or law are claimed to be shown. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a).) A party seeking reconsideration also must provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce the evidence at an earlier time. (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal. App. 4th 206, 213.)

Apart from a parties’ motion, if the court itself “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(c).) Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (c), which provides: “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.”

If the court wishes to, it has the power to reconsider – even if that desire is triggered by an improper motion. (Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal. 4th 1094, 1108; Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (2013) 218 Cal. App. 4th 96, 102 and n. 10; In re Marriage of Barthold (2008) 158 Cal. App. 4th 1301, 1307-12.)

Plaintiff argues that the court of appeal’s holding in Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1324 (“Ochoa v. Ford”) constitutes new law. Ochoa v. Ford was published on 04/04/23, after the court issued its 03/23/23 ruling, so it was not available at the time the court issued its ruling.  That having been said, there is an issue whether Ochoa v. Ford constitutes “new law.” What the Ochoa case did is further enlarge the split of authority created by Felisilda and cases holding to the contrary. Plaintiff’s argument that Ochoa is controlling is without merit. A California court of appeal cannot overrule the decision of another court of appeal.

In addition to the foregoing, Ochoa has been accepted for review by the California Supreme Court. Pursuant to Calif. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(e)(1), once a case has been accepted for review, it has no binding or precedential effect. Thus, Ochoa has no precedential effect, and is not grounds for the court to reverse its previous ruling.

The two additional cases cited by Plaintiff on reply - In Montemayor v. Ford Motor Company 2023 WL 4181909 and Kieler v. Superior Court, Case No. C096773, conflict with Felisilda, but do not overrule its holding. 

Furthermore, Defendants have failed to show diligence in bringing this issue to the Court. In opposition, Defendants submit the declaration of Robert Shields, attorney for Defendant Nissan, who states that he had conversations with Plaintiff’s counsel Knight Law Group (“KLG”) from early April to early May about the deadline for Nissan to commence arbitration in several cases. (Shields Decl., ¶¶ 2-7.)  On 5-4-23, Plaintiff’s counsel, Knight Law Group (“KLG”), demanded that Nissan commence all arbitrations in cases compelled to arbitration no later than the week of 5-8-23 or it would argue waiver as to any case compelled to arbitration after that date.  (Shields Decl., ¶ 6.) On 5-25-23, Defendants filed their Demand for Arbitration with AAA and paid the $600 filing fee to initiate arbitration.  (Hudson Decl., ¶ 4.)  Plaintiff does not dispute these facts or offer any explanation why they demanded Defendants submit the case to arbitration when the intent was to file a motion for reconsideration.  Such actions are wholly inconsistent.  If Plaintiff intended to file the motion for reconsideration, it should have indicated such an intent before demanding Nissan to initiate arbitration and pay the fees. 

While the Court has the authority to reconsider its own rulings, in this case the facts and law gravitate against that.  Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration and the 3-23-23 Order stands.

Moving party to give notice.