Judge Teresa A. Beaudet, Case Number: 22STCV33280, Date: 2023-10-11 Tentative Ruling

CHUANJIE YANG, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. MARKET AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants.	Case No.:	22STCV33280
	Hearing Date:	February 14, 2024
	Hearing Time:	8:30 a.m.
	TENTATIVE RULING RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO RECONSIDER MINUTE ORDER DATED OCTOBER 9, 2023

Plaintiffs Chuanjie Yang, Ollie Lan aka Ruoning Lan, Yu Xia Lu, and Liu Liu (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action on October 11, 2022 against Defendants Market America, Inc., Market America Worldwide, Inc., James Howard Ridinger, Loren Ridinger, and Marc Ashley. The Complaint alleges one cause of action for declaratory relief.

Market America, Inc., Market America Worldwide, Inc., Loren Ridinger and Marc Ashley (collectively referred to herein as “Defendants”) moved for an order dismissing this action on the grounds of forum non conveniens. On October 9, 2023, the Court issued a minute order on the motion which provides, inter alia, that “[t]he Motion to Dismiss filed by Market America Worldwide, Inc., Market America, Inc., Marc Ashley, Loren Ridinger on 08/04/2023 is Granted.”

Plaintiffs now move “for an order reconsidering, the Court’s Minute Order dated October 9, 2023.” Defendants oppose.

“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. The party making the application shall state 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.”

In the motion, Plaintiffs note that the subject October 9, 2023 minute order provides, inter alia, “Hearing on Motion to Dismiss; Case Management Conference…The Honorable Judge Rolf Treu for Honorable Teresa A. Beaudet…The Court’s tentative ruling is posted online for parties/counsel to review. The matter is called for hearing. The parties have seen and read the Court’s written tentative ruling. The matter is heard and argued. After hearing oral argument the Court takes the matter under submission…” (October 9, 2023 minute order, p. 1.)

Plaintiffs’ counsel states in his supporting declaration that “no tentative was posted, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ Counsel were not made privy to the ruling and did not see and read the Court’s tentative ruling. At the October 11, 2023 [sic], the clerk of the department was surprised to hear this, but after checking, confirmed no tentative had been posted.” (Lindemann Decl., ¶ 4.)

As noted by Defendants, on October 12, 2023, the Court issued a “Nunc Pro Tunc Order” providing, “[i]t appearing to the Court that through inadvertence and/or clerical error, the minute order of 10/09/2023 in the above-entitled action does not properly reflect the Court’s order. At the direction of the Judicial Officer, said minute order is corrected nunc pro tunc as of 10/12/2023, as follows: By striking: The Court’s tentative ruling is posted online for parties/counsel to review. The parties have seen and read the Court’s written tentative ruling.”

Plaintiffs argue in the instant motion that “had Plaintiffs received the the [sic] tentative ruling as stated, they would have argued that Defendants have the burden on the motion, not Plaintiffs as held[1], and second, under America Online, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1, 9-11, and its progeny, an out of state forum is unsuitable if a plaintiff cannot pursue the consumer remedy entitled under California law.” (Mot. at p. 1:18-22.) Plaintiffs state that the instant motion “is made on that grounds that the Order was made without providing the benefit of oral argument on the tentative ruling and to otherwise seek clarification as to one point of law as it may impact a subsequent motion filed by defendant the Estate of James Howard Ridinger who was recently added on August 21, 2023.” (Mot. at p. 2:6-9.)

Defendants counter that “[t]he basis for Plaintiffs’ motion does not fall within the statutory criteria for a party to request reconsideration.” (Opp’n at p. 5:3-4.) As noted by Defendants, “[t]he party making the application shall state 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. (a), emphasis added.) Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s supporting declaration does not identify what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. The motion likewise does not appear to identify any “new or different facts, circumstances, or law.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a)

To the extent Plaintiffs contend that the absence of a tentative ruling constitutes “new or different facts, circumstances, or law,” Defendants note that Plaintiffs do not cite any authority for the proposition that a party has a right to a tentative ruling. As noted by Defendants, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308, subdivision (e) provides that “[t]his rule does not require any judge to issue tentative rulings.”

Lastly, on December 29, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a “Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Reconsider Minute Order Dated October 9, 2023.” However, Plaintiffs have not shown that they were authorized to file supplemental briefing.

Moreover, as noted by Defendants, the December 29, 2023 supplemental memorandum was filed more than 10 days after service of the subject October 9, 2023 minute order. As discussed, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (a), “[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.” Here, on October 10, 2023, Defendants filed and served a notice of ruling on Defendants’ motion to dismiss action for forum non conveniens. Ten days after October 10, 2023 is October 20, 2023. The Court thus finds that Plaintiffs’ unauthorized December 29, 2023 supplemental memorandum of points and authorities is untimely.

Based on the foregoing, the Court does not find that Plaintiffs have demonstrated good cause for reconsideration of the Court’s October 9, 2023 minute order.

[1]As noted by Defendants, the Court’s October 9, 2023 minute order provides that “‘On a motion for forum non conveniens, the defendant, as the moving party, bears the burden of proof.’ (Stangvik v. Shiley Inc., supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751.).” (October 9, 2023 minute order at p. 3.)

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50