Schachter

In this class action, a stockbroker challenges his former employer’s stock purchase plan, which used tax-deferred compensation to purchase restricted company stock for participating employees. If the employee resigned before the stock’s vesting period, both the unvested shares and the deferred compensation applied toward their purchase were forfeited. Plaintiff contends the forfeiture provision violates the requirement to pay wages upon resignation (Lab. Code, §§ 201-202), and constitutes conversion and unfair business practices (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.).

Early in the litigation, the trial court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Four years later, with no newly discovered facts, new circumstances, or any change in the law, defendants renewed their motion before a new trial judge. The court granted the motion under its inherent power to reconsider its own rulings sua sponte. We find the second motion was barred by Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f)(2) (§ 437c(f)(2)), which requires a party moving for a second summary judgment motion to establish “newly discovered facts or circumstances or a change of law supporting the issues…