Auto Auction Group, Inc. v. Auto Finance Solutions, LLC

according to the proposed Employee Notice attached as Exhibit A to the settlement agreement, each of the more than 1,160 Aggrieved Employees would first learn about the settlement, and the fact that they have waived all claims and penalties against their employer, after the Court has approved the settlement and they have been handed a check for less than $15.00. The employees have no opportunity to opt out, to retain counsel, or to even receive additional information about what the case is about. (The only contact information is for the Settlement Administrator.)

Third, under the deal the individual Plaintiff would be paid $5,000, or nearly 340 times more than the average employee would receive. Nowhere, though, is there any indication that Plaintiff's alleged harm from the various Labor Code violations is any greater than that of her fellow employees. The fact that she was a named Plaintiff does not warrant such disparate treatment, especially where it is to the detriment of some many other employees.

Viewed as a whole, the proposed settlement appears to be an unfair package deal, where Defendant pays a healthy sum to Plaintiff and her attorney in exchange for a substantial discount on PAGA penalties for thousands of aggrieved employees, all of whom learn for the first time that they have released all of their individual claims when they receive a small check. For these reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the PAGA action settlement, without prejudice.

Auto Finance Solutions, LLC Cross-Complainant Auto Finance Solutions, LLC's Request for Default Judgment on the Cross-Complaint Cross-Complainant Auto Finance Solutions, LLC requests court judgment by default against Cross-Defendants Auto Auction Group, Inc. and Onnik Mehrabian, as individual and trustee for the Mehrabian Family Trust. The Court still cannot grant the default judgment.

An application for default judgment requires "[a] dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(7).) "In an action against several defendants, the Court may, in its discretion, render judgment against one or more of them, leaving the action to proceed against the others, whenever a several judgment is proper." (CCP Sec. 579.)

Here, Cross-Complainant asks for a separate judgment against Auto Auction Group, Inc. and Onnik Mehrabian while Cross-Defendants Papa & Sons, LLC and First Business International, the alleged alter egos of Onnik Mehrabian, remain in the case as defaulted Cross-Defendants. However, Cross-Complainant does not adequately show how several judgment is proper under the circumstances. Cross-Complainant brings only one cause of action against all Cross-Defendants for breach of contract. Papa & Sons, LLC and First Business International are not signatories to the contract; any liability imposed on them would be derivative of Auto Auction Group, Inc. and Onnik Mehrabian's liability. Therefore, Cross-Complainant's application for several judgment is not properly "supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(7).)

Disposition

Cross-Complainant Auto Finance Solutions, LLC 's request for default judgment is denied without prejudice.

Case Number: 24STCV10253 Hearing Date: August 21, 2026 Dept: 510 No. 10 - Jack Panossian v. Tesla Motors, Inc. Plaintiff Jack Panossian's Motion for Reconsideration Plaintiff Jack Panossian moves the Court to reconsider its September 23, 2024 order granting Defendant Tesla Motors, Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration.

Request for Judicial Notice Plaintiff requests the Court take judicial notice of two appellate court opinions: Doss v. Tesla, Inc. and Betanco v. Living Spaces Furniture, LLC. These opinions are subject to judicial notice under Evidence Code section 452(a), but as legal authority, there is no need for the Court to take judicial notice. Plaintiff's request for judicial notice is denied as unnecessary.

Motion for Reconsideration Plaintiff moves the court to reconsider its order under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(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." The statute's plain language does not permit a party to make such a motion to reconsider on this ground. Instead, a party's motion to reconsider an order granted by the court must abide by the restrictions of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(a), including that the motion must be made "within 10 days" of the order. (Cox v. Bonni (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 287, 312.)

A court may, however, reconsider its order on its own motion, even in conjunction with a party's motion for reconsideration. (In re Marriage of Barthold (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1308-1309; Cox, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at p. 314 [trial court implicitly exercised its inherent authority and "did not grant defendant's motion on the merits, but only the relief sought by that motion"].) The Court has inherent constitutional power sua sponte to reconsider, correct, and change its own interim decisions. (Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1107.)

The Court declines to reconsider its prior order because the new authority on which Plaintiff relies does not constitute a change in law. Section 1008(c) "does not define what constitutes a 'change of law,' and its terminology gives the court very broad power." (Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th