Wu vs. Burch Shepard Family Law Group, APC

Although the motion seeks to “vacate” the prior order, Plaintiff is asking this Court to reconsider its 11/24/25 order compelling arbitration.

A motion for reconsideration must be filed by a party affected by the order “within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a).) The present motion was filed on 1/21/26, 58 days after entry of the 11/24/25 order and 46 days after service of notice of that order. (Defendant’s Ex. 1, Notice of Ruling.)

Plaintiff does not present legal authority allowing the Court to consider this request for reconsideration outside of the statutory ten-day window. Plaintiff argues that her failure to file the motion earlier was due to excusable neglect but she does not cite any legal authority for excusable neglect as grounds for the court to consider an untimely motion for reconsideration. Moreover, Plaintiff apparently made a decision to file a writ petition in the appellate court during the reconsideration period rather than filing a motion for relief in this court.

Defendants cite Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, which states excusable neglect cannot extend the timeline under section 1008: “To hold, under the circumstances presented in this case, that the general relief mechanism provided in section 473 could be used to circumvent the jurisdictional requirements for reconsideration found in section 1008 would undermine the intent of the Legislature as specifically expressed in section 1008, subdivision (e): ‘No application to reconsider any order ... may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to this section.’ Therefore, we decline to so hold.”

Therefore, the motion is untimely.