Case Has Nice Discussion Of Those Elusive Little Differences Between CCP 1008(a) and (b).

     In ongoing litigation against Ralphs Grocer Co. and The Kroger Co. for Labor Code violations (defendants), the trial court denied defendants’ renewed petition to compel arbitration filed pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. section 1008(b). Defendants appealed.   Brown v. Ralphs Grocer Company, et al., B247297 (2nd Dist. Div. 5 March 6, 2014) (Mosk, Kriegler, Mink) (unpublished). 

     There is plenty of case law concerning the appealability of an order denying a motion for reconsideration under 1008(a).  Not appealable.  But what about 1008(b).  And what’s the difference between (a) and (b) anyway? 

     Subsection (a) relates to reconsideration motions, whereas subsection (b) relates to renewal motions. A motion to renew differs from a motion for reconsideration in that the former seeks to renew a motion rather than reconsider an order, has no time limit, and may be heard by a new judge.  The motion for reconsideration under (a) is brought by any party affected by the order, whereas the renewal motion under (b) is brought by a party who originally made an application for an order.  But in either case, the moving party seeks a new result based upon “new or different facts, circumstances, or law.” 

     Here, the Court of Appeal followed the reasoning in Tate v. Wilburn, 184 Cal.App.4th 150, 160 (2010), that an order denying a renewal motion under section 1008(b). just like one brought under 1008(a) is nonappealable. As the court reasoned in Tate, another result would mean that “a party would have two appeals from the same decision.”

     Appeal dismissed.