Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 21STCV30877, Date: 2023-06-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV30877    Hearing Date: September 11, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On August 20, 2021, Plaintiff Laura Rico filed this action against Defendants FCA US LLC and Scott Robinson Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram for breach of warranties arising from the purchase of an allegedly defective vehicle and subsequent negligent repair.

On November 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to RFPs.

FCA did not timely file an opposition, and instead, it filed a declaration at 11:18 p.m. the night before the hearing.  At the April 20, 2023 hearing, the Court directed the parties to prepare and file a joint statement no later than April 26, 2023.  The Court continued the hearing to May 1, 2023.

The parties filed an untimely joint statement on April 28, 2023, which the Court did not receive before the May 1, 2023 hearing.  The Court continued the hearing again to allow the Court time to read and consider the parties’ joint statement.

According to the Joint Statement, the parties agreed that FCA had supplemented the remaining RFPs at issue.  The Joint Statement is signed by counsel for both parties, and Plaintiff did not file any supplemental information denying that the issues were resolved.

Therefore, before the June 20, 2023 hearing, the Court issued a tentative ruling denying the motion to compel as moot.  (Joint Decl., Ex. A.)

The parties agreed to submit on the tentative.  (Joint Decl. ¶¶ 6-8.)  However, an attorney representing Plaintiff appeared at the June 20, 2023 hearing and incorrectly advised the Court that there was an ongoing dispute about the motion.  (Joint Decl. ¶ 9.)  Defense counsel did not appear.  The Court further continued the hearing to July 11, 2023 and ordered Plaintiff to give notice.

Defendants’ counsel did not appear at the July 11, 2023 hearing because they did not receive notice.  (Joint Decl. ¶ 10.)  The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion in part and ordered that Defendant pay sanctions.

On July 24, 2023, Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration and a joint declaration with Plaintiff.

Within ten days of service of an order, a party may move for reconsideration based on new facts, circumstances, or law.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a); see also Mink v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1342.)  The moving party shall state by affidavit what application was made before, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to be shown.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd .(a).)  “[T]he party seeking reconsideration must provide not only new evidence but also a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce that evidence at an earlier time.”  (Glade v. Glade (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1457.)  The legislative intent was to restrict motions for reconsideration to circumstances where a party offers the court some fact or circumstance not previously considered and some valid reason for not offering it earlier.  (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.)

After the ten-day period for a party’s motion, a court retains power to, on its own motion, reconsider its prior interim orders so it may correct errors.  (Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1107.)

The Court finds that there is a satisfactory excuse for Defendants’ non-appearance at the June 20, 2023 hearing, and they reasonably relied on the parties’ agreement to submit on the tentative ruling that denied the motion as moot.  There is also a satisfactory excuse for Defendants’ non-appearance at the July 11, 2023 continued hearing at which the Court ordered further production and payment of sanctions because Plaintiff failed to give notice of that continued hearing.

Plaintiff did not oppose the motion, and Plaintiff’s counsel contributed to the joint declaration.

The motion for reconsideration is GRANTED.  The Court’s July 11, 2023 Order is VACATED.  Plaintiff’s November 18, 2022 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is DENIED AS MOOT.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 11th day of September 2023