Wilson Catalan vs. Ford Motor Company, et.al.

Case No.: 24CV444665

On March 6, 2026, defendants Ford Motor Company and All Star Ford (collectively, “Defendants”) moved for judgment on the pleadings on the first through fourth causes of action, asserting that “Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Ford’s Requests for Admission (‘RFAs’) resulted in a court order deeming them admitted... [and t]hose deemed admissions conclusively negate essential elements of Plaintiff’s Song-Beverly claims... claims for negligence and establish the absence of any recoverable damages.” (Defs.’ memorandum of points and authorities in support of first motion for judgment on the pleadings (“Defs.’ memo re first JOP”), p.3:9-13.)

In its order regarding the motion, the Court noted that “[i]n support of their motion, Defendants presented a tentative ruling and a proposed order submitted on February 18, 2026 that ‘remains waiting for the final signature of the Court.’” The Court further noted that “Defendants did not request judicial notice of any order in connection with their motion.... [however, t]hereafter, in connection with their reply brief, Defendants requested judicial notice of the March 10, 2026 order regarding the matters in the RFAs as conclusively established.”

In denying Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court stated:

Here, Defendants did not present the March 10, 2026 order in connection with their motion. While the Court may, in addition to the facts pleaded, consider matters that are proper subjects of judicial notice, including a party’s admissions, the matter upon which the motion was premised was not presented. Indeed, the Vanderhoof declaration plainly states that Defendants did not have a final order regarding the matters in the RFAs. Instead,

Defendants did not request judicial notice of the March 10, 2026 order until after Plaintiff had filed his opposition. The Court may not consider Defendants’ request for judicial notice, made for the first time in reply, as it violates Plaintiff’s due process rights. (See San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 308, 316 (stating that “the evidence... was not filed until after assignee had responded to the issues... [i]n considering this evidence, the court violated assignee’s due process rights”); see also Maleti v.

Wickers (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 181, 228 (Sixth District stating that “[t]he general rule of motion practice... is that new evidence is not permitted with reply papers”); see also Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537 (stating same); see also Jack v. Ring LLC (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1186, 1210 (stating same); see also City of Rocklin v. Legacy Family Adventures- Rocklin, LLC (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 713, 730 (stating same).)

These issues are also more properly the subject of a motion for summary judgment. Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED in its entirety.

(July 7, 2026 minute order re: Defs.’ first motion for judgment on the pleadings, pp.1-2.)

On July 15, 2026, Defendants again moved for judgment on the pleadings, again arguing that “[o]n March 10, 2026, this Court issued its Order deeming admitted Ford's Requests for Admission (‘RFAs’)... [t]hose deemed admissions conclusively negate a essential elements of Plaintiff's Song—Beverly claims... claims for negligence and establish the absence of any recoverable damages.” (Defs.’ memorandum of points and authorities in support of second motion for judgment on the pleadings, p.3:9-12.)

“Code of Civil procedure section 1008 prohibits a party from filing repetitive motions for the same relief....” (Farber v. Bay View Terrace Homeowners Assn. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1007, 1015; see also People v. Silva (1981) 114 Cal.App.3d 538, 554 (stating that “[o]rdinarily, a court will refuse to consider repeated motions supported by substantially the same showing as the one denied”).)

Defendants do not show 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, as required by section 1008, subdivision (b), and thus, the instant motion cannot be considered as a motion made pursuant to section 1008. (See Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200 (stating that “section 1008 is jurisdictional”); see also Kerns v. CSE Ins. Group (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 368, 383 (stating that “case law interpreting section 1008 has specifically held that a moving party must give a satisfactory explanation for the previous failure to present the allegedly new or different evidence or legal authority offered in the second application”); see also Cradduck v.

Hilton Domestic Operating Co., Inc. (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 284, 304 (stating that “[a] party seeking reconsideration also must provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce the evidence at an earlier time... [h]e does not offer any argument why any or all of this evidence, with reasonable diligence, could not have been presented at or prior to the July 14 hearing... [a]ccordingly, he did not make the requisite showing necessary for a motion for reconsideration under section 1008...

Section 1008, subdivision (e) states: ‘This section 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.’ Thus, section 1008 is jurisdictional”); see also Goncharov v.

Uber Technologies, Inc. (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1157, 1167 (stating that “a party cannot seek to dismiss the same claim based on a previously rejected argument without seeking reconsideration”).)

Moreover, the Court was not mistaken with regards to the first motion for judgment on the pleadings—Defendants did fail to present any judicially noticeable facts in connection with its first motion that established that any order deemed certain RFAs as admitted.

The prior ruling was not erroneous and there has been no change of law that warrants reconsideration; the Court does not reconsider its prior ruling on its own motion either.

As Defendants’ second motion for judgment on the pleadings is in actuality a motion for reconsideration that does not comply with section 1008, Defendants’ motion is DENIED in its entirety.

Plaintiff shall prepare and submit a proposed final order consistent with this tentative ruling.

Calendar Line 6

Case Name: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Ryan Ourique