Medical Solutions LLC (MedSol) is a healthcare staffing business that places healthcare professionals in temporary assignments at healthcare facilities. In May 2022, MedSol hired Derek Hickenbottom as a travel nurse. During onboarding, Hickenbottom signed several documents, including an employee handbook acknowledgment and an Employee Agreement, each of which contained an arbitration provision, though the language differed between them. The Employee Agreement explained that the employee would sign a separate Travel Assignment Agreement for each temporary placement, and that those assignment agreements could contain terms superseding provisions of the Employee Agreement.

In February 2023, Hickenbottom accepted an assignment at Palomar Medical Center and signed a Travel Assignment Agreement that incorporated by reference MedSol’s “Generally Applicable Policies,” which included what the parties call the 2023 Arbitration Agreement. Its terms again differed in certain respects from the earlier arbitration provisions. The Palomar assignment was Hickenbottom’s last with MedSol, and in March 2024 he filed a class action alleging various wage and hour claims.

MedSol moved to compel arbitration, relying on the arbitration provision in the employee handbook. Hickenbottom opposed, pointing out that the handbook provision had been superseded by the 2023 Arbitration Agreement incorporated into his Palomar Travel Assignment Agreement. MedSol’s reply acknowledged a series of arbitration agreements existed, characterized the differences as largely immaterial, and argued the motion should be granted regardless of which agreement applied.

The San Diego County Superior Court issued a tentative ruling denying the motion. At the hearing, MedSol’s counsel conceded the tentative was well taken and that the agreement submitted with the motion had been superseded, and proposed filing another motion based on the correct agreement. Hickenbottom’s counsel objected that any subsequent motion would be an improper motion for reconsideration, since the operative agreement had been known to MedSol for months. The trial court confirmed the tentative and denied the motion, observing that MedSol had moved on an arbitration agreement that had been superseded “without question,” and noting that counsel appeared poised to attempt a second motion. MedSol did not appeal that denial.

Roughly a month later, MedSol filed a second motion to compel arbitration, this time relying on the 2023 Arbitration Agreement. The filing did not address whether it was a motion for reconsideration or a renewed motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, and attached no affidavit explaining any new or different facts, circumstances, or law. Hickenbottom argued the motion was a renewed motion seeking the same relief and that the court lacked jurisdiction because MedSol had not complied with section 1008 in any respect. MedSol responded that section 1008 was simply inapplicable because it was seeking to enforce an entirely different contract. The trial court agreed with Hickenbottom, finding both motions sought “the same order and relief,” and concluded it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the second motion. MedSol appealed from that order.

In the published case of Hickenbottom v. Medical Solutions LLC, No. D086542 (Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., Div. 1, August 2026) — the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding the order denying a renewed motion is not appealable.

The opinion began with a discussion of CCP section 1008’s purpose: the statute was designed to conserve judicial resources by constraining litigants who would bring the same motion repeatedly, citing Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094. The statute has two related components: subdivision (a) governs motions for reconsideration seeking to modify, amend, or revoke a previous order, while subdivision (b) governs the renewal of a prior motion requesting the same relief previously denied but on a different factual or legal basis. Either type requires an accompanying affidavit stating what new or different facts, circumstances, or law justify the motion, together with a showing of diligence and a satisfactory explanation for not presenting that information earlier, citing Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 830. The Legislature made these requirements jurisdictional: under section 1008, subdivision (e), no application to reconsider an order or renew a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to the section.

Applying that framework, the panel held both of MedSol’s motions sought identical relief — an order compelling arbitration of Hickenbottom’s individual claims and dismissing his class claims — and that the second was therefore a renewed motion governed by section 1008, subdivision (b). The court rejected MedSol’s central argument that it had filed a motion to enforce a different contract, observing bluntly that MedSol “did not file a motion to enforce a contract,” and that no such procedural vehicle exists in California practice outside the limited context of an independent action to compel arbitration, which was not what happened here.

The panel found the case controlled by California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. Virga (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 30, where successive attorney’s fee motions were based on different statutes — one state, one federal — and the appellate court held it was “beyond dispute” that both sought identical relief, so the second was a renewed motion. As Virga put it, a party must advance all correct legal theories in its original motion rather than burden the trial court with repeated motions for the same relief. The panel distinguished the authorities MedSol offered. Doe v. Westmont College (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 753 involved a postappeal fee motion requesting a different amount than the original, and even reading Westmont and Virga to require an identical dollar figure for fee motions would not suggest MedSol’s second motion here sought different relief. Westlands Water Dist. v. All Persons Interested (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 98 arose in a validation action, where the relief requested is approval of a particular contract, so a different contract means genuinely different relief; a motion to compel arbitration, by contrast, seeks to transfer a set of legal claims from the public court system to private arbitration, and both MedSol motions sought exactly that transfer of the same claims.

Because MedSol failed to comply with section 1008, subdivision (b), the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the second motion, and an order denying a renewed motion is not appealable, citing Chango Coffee, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters, Inc. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1247. The panel declined MedSol’s request to treat the appeal as a petition for writ of mandate, explaining that issuing a peremptory writ directing the trial court to grant the motion would direct the court to do something it had no power to do; an appellate court may sometimes treat an attempted appeal as a writ petition, but it cannot confer jurisdiction where none exists. The appeal was dismissed, with costs to Hickenbottom.