STACY SAAL VS. GLYDWAYS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 302 - CGC23607926 - July 8, 2025 Hearing date: July 8, 2025 Case number: CGC23607926 Case title: STACY SAAL VS. GLYDWAYS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL Case Number: | | CGC23607926 | Case Title: | | STACY SAAL VS. GLYDWAYS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-07-08 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice And Motion For Reconsideration Under Ccp Section 1008(A) | Rulings: | | Matter on calendar for Tuesday, July 8, 2025, Line 1, DEFENDANT GLYDWAYS, INC.'S, MARK SEEGER, VINOD KHOSLA Notice And Motion For Reconsideration Under Ccp Section 1008(A).

Defendant Vinod Khosla's motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 for reconsideration of this court's June 6, 2025 Order on his motion for summary judgment/adjudication is DENIED.

Defendant seeks reconsideration of the court's June 6, 2025 Order under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. Subdivision (a) of section 1008 requires that reconsideration motions be "based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law ... [and] 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 of Civ. Proc. Sec. 1008(a).) The moving party bears the burden of proving that the alleged "new or different facts, circumstances, or law" could not, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered or produced earlier. (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212-213.) This standard is jurisdictional. (See Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(e).)

Defendant argues it failed to identify and brief specific sections of Washington law, including RCW sections 49.46.010(7) and 50.04.335, that purportedly exclude stock options from the definition of wages. The subject Washington law, which was in place at the time of the original motion (and all times subsequent), is not "new or different" law within the meaning of CCP 1008. Nor has Defendant identified any "new" facts justifying reconsideration. The court declines to exercise any "inherent authority" to change its prior ruling. The motion for reconsideration is denied and the 6/6/2025 Order stands.

Defendant's motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 436 is denied, as well. The court finds no substantial basis to strike any pleading or any part of any pleading.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.