In the Matter of Petition of CSAA Insurance Exchange

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court

34-2022-00321738-CU-PT-GDS: Petition of CSAA Insurance Exchange 08/20/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Extend Deadline for Arbitrator Selection in Department 53

Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion of Claimant Harold J. Rucker Jr. (“Claimant”) to “Notice of Motion CCP 1008 and Motion to Extend Deadline for Arbitrator Selection” is ruled upon as follows.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving party is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving party is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, moving party is ordered to appear at the hearing by Zoom or in person.

Claimant failed to comply with California Rules of Court, rules 3.1110(c) and 3.1113 (h), requiring pagination of documents/memorandum.

Through this motion, it appears Claimant requests an “extension” of the “arbitratorselection deadline,” by an amount of time which is indiscernible to the Court. (Compare Mov. P&A, p. 2 [requesting “a modest extension 14 days from the current August 18, 2025 arbitrator-deadline”] with Mov. P&A p. 4 [requesting the Court “extend the arbitrator-selection deadline by 60 days, to October 1, 2025”].) Plaintiff requests this extension so as to allow him time to retain counsel.

Respondent CSAA Insurance Exchange (“CSAA”) opposes the motion.

Background

On July 7, 2025, this Court heard oral argument on CSAA’s motion to appoint arbitrator. The Court granted the motion to appoint in arbitrator in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1281.6 and set forth a process for the Parties to each submit a list of five arbitrators. The Court set the matter for further hearing on July 28, 2025 for any outstanding issues regarding selection of the arbitrator, including if the parties were unable to agree upon an arbitrator. (7/7/25 Minute Order at pp. 2-3.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00321738-CU-PT-GDS: Petition of CSAA Insurance Exchange 08/20/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Extend Deadline for Arbitrator Selection in Department 53

On July 16, 2025, Claimant filed the instant motion, entitled “Notice of Motion CCP 1008 and Motion to Extend Deadline for Arbitrator Selection.” As noted in the introduction and conclusion, Claimant requested the Court extend the arbitrator-selection deadline.

On July 24, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part Claimant’s request for ex parte relief. Specifically, the Court denied Claimant’s request to stay/extend the arbitration deadline, for terminating sanctions, and vacate/void the April 22, 2025 stipulation, and for personal sanctions against opposing counsel; the Court held that such requested relief was not available on an ex parte basis. However, the Court granted relief, in the form of advancing the hearing date, on the present motion for reconsideration.

On July 28, 2025, this Court issued its order on CSAA’s motion to appoint arbitrator. Appearances were required. The Court selected the arbitrator, as described in its Minute Order:

At hearing, the Parties represented that they had not been able to agree upon an arbitrator. The Court folded papers numbered 1-5, to be associated with the numbers from its tentative ruling, placed them in a cup, and the court attendant drew number 5. The arbitrator selected was #5 Brad Thomas, and the Court appoints Brad Thomas as the arbitrator pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6 as well as the Court’s July 7, 2025 and July 21, 2025 Minute Orders.

On August 6, 2025, the Court denied Claimant’s Ex Parte Application for Order Extending Arbitration Deadline, without prejudice to filing a noticed motion pursuant to CCP section 1005(b). The Court again reiterated that ex parte relief was not available, but noted that the current order did not preclude Claimant from filing and serving a properly noticed motion and requesting to advance the hearing date, if needed.

Discussion

Through this motion, Claimant generally cites to Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) sections 1281.6, 1008, and 583.310 in support of his requested relief.[1]

First, neither CCP sections 1281.6 or 583.310 would otherwise provide for Claimant’s requested “extension” of the “arbitrator-selection deadline.” CCP section 1281.6 provides a method for the court appointing an arbitrator if the parties cannot agree upon

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00321738-CU-PT-GDS: Petition of CSAA Insurance Exchange 08/20/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Extend Deadline for Arbitrator Selection in Department 53

an arbitrator. The section provides that, if the parties fail to select an arbitrator with the five-day period after the Court has nominated five persons, “the court shall appoint the arbitrator from the nominees.”[2] CCP section 583.310 provides that an action shall be brought to trial within five years after the action is commenced against the defendant. Claimant’s motion on these grounds is DENIED.

Next, to the extent Claimant seeks reconsideration of this Court’s July 7, 2025, order, pursuant to CCP section 1008, Claimant fails to show why such requested relief would be warranted. There are strict requirements for a motion for reconsideration. Foremost is that the motion for reconsideration must be heard by the same judge who issued the order sought to be reconsidered. (Code Civ. Proc., §1008(a)). Second, the motion for reconsideration must be filed within 10 days of the order denying the motion. (Ibid.)

The Court finds both of these elements are satisfied as this Judge (Judge Yap) issued the order sought to be reconsidered, and the motion was timely filed within 10 days of that order.

Importantly, a motion for reconsideration must be supported by “new or different facts, circumstances or law.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(b).) The party seeking reconsideration must base its motion “upon newly discovered facts, circumstances, or law.” (The New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 208.) The moving party must also provide “a satisfactory explanation for the failure to make the showing at or before the time the challenged order was issued.” (Ibid.) “The information must be such that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced it.” (Id. at p. 213.)

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.)

In support of his arguments, it appears Claimant primarily relies on “transcript excerpts” from the July 7, 2025, hearing, which Claimant contends demonstrate his “cognitive impairment and opposing counsel’s admissions and misstatements.” (Rucker Decl., ¶ 2.) Notably, the transcript excerpts appear to have been prepared by Claimant himself. (See Rucker Decl., Ex. 1.) Even assuming the accuracy and authenticity of these excerpts, the Court would not agree with Claimant’s characterization of what the transcript excerpts purport to say. Further, as these excerpts regards the hearing itself, the Court does not find this to constitute “new or different facts, circumstances or law,” warranting reconsideration. Accordingly, to the extent Claimant intend this to be a motion for reconsideration, pursuant to CCP section 1008, Claimant’s motion is

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00321738-CU-PT-GDS: Petition of CSAA Insurance Exchange 08/20/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Extend Deadline for Arbitrator Selection in Department 53

DENIED.

Moreover, even if the Court were to consider Claimant’s submissions or arguments as new or different facts or circumstances, the Court does not find that such consideration would persuade the Court that its prior order was erroneous. (See Randy’s Trucking, Inc. v. Superior Court (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 818, 844.)

Accordingly, Claimant’s motion is DENIED.

Disposition

Claimant’s motion to “Notice of Motion CCP 1008 and Motion to Extend Deadline for Arbitrator Selection” is DENIED as set forth herein.

The Court did not consider Claimant’s arguments raised for the first time in his reply and his late filed supplemental declaration. (See, e.g., Supp. Rucker Decl., ¶ 2 [argument that CSAA failed to satisfy the meet and confer “requirement” pursuant to CCP § 2016.040]; see also Reply, p. 6 [argument that the Court’s prior orders are modifiable under CCP 473].) It is elementary that points raised for the first time in a reply brief are not considered by the court. (See St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 783; Campos v. Anderson (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 784, 794, fn. 3.) Even if the Court had considered these arguments, the outcome of this motion would have been the same.

The Court notes that, in reply, Claimant asserts that [t]he “sole relief Claimant seeks today is an extension of the arbitration deadline from September 5, 2025 to December 15, 2025.” (Reply at 1.) The Court notes that the requested relief sought in reply is not the requested relief sought by the motion. As such, it is not properly before the Court in this motion. Moreover, this motion was brought as a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s July 7, 2025 Order. Neither that order – nor the motion of CSAA to which it addressed – addressed a request to extend the arbitration deadline. The Court again notes that nothing in this order precludes Claimant from seeking such relief through a properly noticed motion and seeking to advance the hearing date on that motion, if necessary.

The Court also notes that, in reply, Claimant represents that the arbitrator appointed by the Court on July 28, 2025 is not available to serve as an arbitrator. Again, while the Parties may seek additional relief as a result of this circumstance through a noticed motion, no relief relating to the arbitrator selected on July 28, 2025 – after the pending

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00321738-CU-PT-GDS: Petition of CSAA Insurance Exchange 08/20/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Extend Deadline for Arbitrator Selection in Department 53

motion was filed on July 16, 2025 – was set forth in the pending motion.

Claimant is admonished to the extent that certain case authority cited his moving papers were incorrect and/or erroneous case citations. (See, e.g., Mov. P&A, p. 3, citing Miranda v. Fresno USD (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1333; Workman v. Kern County (2015) 243 Cal. App.4th 1049].) While Claimant is self-represented, Claimant is reminded that self-represented litigants are required to follow the same procedural rules that govern civil litigation. (McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 522-523.)

It appears from Claimant’s August 18, 2025 filing that he is seeking Statement of Decision with respect to the pending motion. As noted in the Court’s 7/7/2025 Minute Order (for which this motion seeks reconsideration) and subsequent 7/28/2025 Minute Order (which was set for further proceedings on the same motion), and as set forth herein again, the Court does not find that a Statement of Decision is warranted on this motion.

CCP section 632 provides, in relevant part, “In superior courts, upon the trial of a question of fact by the court, written findings of fact and conclusions of law shall not be required. The court shall issue a statement of decision explaining the factual and legal basis for its decision as to each of the principal controverted issues at trial upon the request of any party appearing at the trial.” (emphasis added.) Pursuant to CCP section 1291, a statement of decision shall be made in connection with an order compelling arbitration, as that order is appealable under CCP section 1294. “[C]ourts have held that a statement of decision is ordinarily not require in connection with ruling on a motion, even if the motion involves extensive evidentiary hearing.”

Respondent filed a “Notice of Motion and Motion to Appoint Arbitrator” on June 17, 2025, moving for an order appointing an arbitrator pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6. Further the ex parte application to shorten time and subsequent Order granting a shortened period to hear the motion referenced a “Motion to Appoint an Arbitrator.” While Respondent subsequently made filings relating to this motion, referencing a “Motion to Compel Arbitrator,” the Court finds that this misnomer does not convert the motion into a motion to compel arbitration. Rather, this case was previously compelled to arbitration on October 1, 2024. A motion to appoint an arbitrator is not listed as an order that may be appealed in CCP section 1294. Accordingly, the Court finds that Claimant is not entitled to a Statement of Decision on this motion to appoint an arbitrator.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00321738-CU-PT-GDS: Petition of CSAA Insurance Exchange 08/20/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Extend Deadline for Arbitrator Selection in Department 53

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules Court, rule 3.1312.)

[1] Claimant also references “Section 3.229(f) of the California Rules of Court.” As CSAA

correctly points out in opposition, this cited rule does not exist. [2] Claimant references CCP section 1281.6(c), which does not exist in the code; there

are no sub parts to section 1281.6. It also appears that Claimant represents to be quoting from the non-existent subsection for the proposition that, for good cause, the court “may . . . extend the time for the selection . . . for up to 30 days.” (Memorandum of Points & Authorities at “III. Legal Standard.”) This language is not included in CCP section 1281.6.