Source: https://trellis.law/ca/motion-type/motion-to-reconsider-45
Timestamp: 2020-07-12 06:53:52
Document Index: 207809754

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1008', '§ 1008', '§ 11', '§ 1008', '§ 1008', '§ 473', '§ 1008', '§ 1008']

Section 1008 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for reconsideration of court orders. A motion to reconsider is broad in scope and allows any party affected by the order to seek reconsideration and modification, amendment or vacation of prior orders. Morite of Calif. v. Super. Ct. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 485, 490.
The Court has inherent authority to reconsider any of its own rulings on its own motion provided that it gives the parties notice and a reasonable opportunity to litigate the issue. Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1096-1109.
“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.” Weil & Brown et al., CAL. PRAC. GUIDE: CIV. PRO. BEFORE TRIAL (The Rutter Group 2018) ¶9:328, p.9(I)-148 citing Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500 (Gilberd), et al.
“A party who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or part, or granted conditionally or on terms, may make a subsequent application for the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, in which case it shall be shown 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. For a failure to comply with this subdivision, any order made on a subsequent application may be revoked or set aside on ex parte motion.” Code of Civ. Proc., § 1008(b).
To be entitled to reconsideration, a party must show new or different facts and a satisfactory explanation for failing to produce such evidence earlier. Kalivas v. Barry Controls Corp., (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1160-61. The requirement of satisfactory explanation for failing to provide the evidence earlier can only be described as a strict requirement of diligence. Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690.
“The burden under section 1008 is comparable to that of a party seeking a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence: the information must be such that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced it at the trial. Case law after the 1992 amendments to section 1008 has relaxed the definition of ‘new or different facts,’ but it is still necessary that the party seeking that relief offer some fact or circumstance not previously considered by the court.” New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212-213.
A motion for reconsideration cannot be granted on the ground that the court misapplied the law in its initial ruling. Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.
“When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application 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., § 1008(a).
Useful Rulings on Motion to Reconsider
LUIS CALDERON VS MICHAEL KOUTSOUKOS ET AL
SUBJECT: Motion for Reconsideration Moving Party: Defendants Michael Koutsoukos and Eleni Koutsoukos, as trustees Resp. Party: Plaintiff Luis Calderon Defendants’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED. BACKGROUND: Plaintiff Luis Calderon commenced this action on August 10, 2017 against Defendants Michael Koutsoukos and Eleni J. Koutsoukos, as trustees of the Michael Koutsoukos and Eleni J. Kou...
..Defendants. (Complaint, ¶¶ 1-2.) Plaintiff alleges that the accessible route on the Property leading to and from the business did not have detectable warnings required by Title 24 § 11B-247.1 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations. (Id. at ¶ 2.) Plaintiff alleges that “the lack of detectable warnings results in unnecessary risk to Plaintiff of potentially sever injuries.” (Id. at ¶ 3.) On...
Benedict Lobo v. Intel Mobile Communications North America Inc., et al.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Summary Adjudication Factual and Procedural Background Plaintiff Benedict Lobo (“Lobo”) began working as a Software Engineer for defendant Intel Mobile Communications North America Inc. (“Intel”) in October 2014. (First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), ¶17.) Plaintiff Lobo’s manager, defendant Drupad Perumandala (“Perumandala”) made disparaging remarks to plai...
..against plaintiff Lobo’s objections by placing him on a corrective action plan (“CAP”). (FAC, ¶22.) Plaintiff Lobo believes defendants’ proffered CAP was a pretext for unlawful discrimination and harassment. (FAC, ¶23.) Defendants constructively terminated plaintiff Lobo from his position. (FAC, ¶24.) On June 12, 2017, plaintiff Lobo filed a complaint against defendants Intel and Perumandala. On...
Bank of Hope v. Shahram Ray Golbari, et al., 19STCV00351 Tentative decision on motion for reconsideration: denied Defendants Shahram Ray Golbari, aka Ray Golbari, aka Shahram Rahim Golbari (“Golbari”), Mehran Verdi, aka Mehram Mike Verdi, aka Mike Verdi (“Verdi”), and Farshid Pourlavaei, aka Farshi Pour Lavaei, aka Farshid P. Lavaei (“Pourlaevi”) (“Defendants” or “Guarantors”) move for reconside...
..omplaint (“FAC”) filed on January 14, 2019, which alleges causes of action for (1) breach of guaranty (6101), (2) breach of guaranty (1061), (3) money lent, (4) account stated, and (5) fair valuation. The Complaint alleges in pertinent part as follows. Plaintiff Bank is the successor-in-interest by way of merger between Center Bank and BBCN Bank. On August 10, 2006, non-party Center Bank made a...
SUBJECT: Motion for Reconsideration Moving Party: Trustee Turner, on behalf of The Eddie Turner Trust – 2009, UDT DATED MAY 22, 2009 Resp. Party: Defendants U.S. Bank National Association and Nationstar Mortgage (“Defendants”) The motion for reconsideration is DENIED. BACKGROUND: Plaintiff Eddie Turner, in propria persona, commenced this complaint on November 16, 2015 against Defendants U.S....
..5.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants U.S. Bank and Nationstar Mortgage initiated foreclosure proceedings against the subject property in 2014, with U.S. Bank eventually buying the property and a Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale being recorded against the property on 3/12/15 based on the 2007 Deeds of Trust. (FAC, 3:1-21.) It is alleged that Defendant Arin Capital and Investment Corp. subsequently purchas...
DIANA MARTINEZ ET AL VS PETER HUTHMACHER
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT DIANA MARTINEZ, et al., Plaintiff(s), vs. PETER HUTHMACHER, et al., Defendant(s). CASE NO: BC713062 [TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Dept. 3 1:30 p.m. August 8, 2019 1. Background On July 10, 2018, Plaintiffs Diana Martinez (“Martinez”) and Jhovanny Cruz (“Cruz”) (collectively “P...
..subpoenas for medical records. The Court determined the subpoenas did not need to be limited by body part. However, the Court determined the subpoenas were grossly overbroad in duration. The Court ordered that Binder must issue new subpoenas with a duration dating from five years prior to the action to the present date for Martinez and from 2008 to the present for Cruz. (Court’s 6/28/19 Minute Ord...
Montiel v. Newport Foot and Ankle Center, Inc.
Plaintiff’s (Yolanda Montiel) Motion to Reconsider/Revoke/Amend And/Or Modify the Court’s February 26, 2019 Order Granting Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint (Motion), filed on 3-8-19, is DENIED. Plaintiff brings this motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. (Motion, 5:8-24.) Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, states, “(a) When an application for an order has bee...
..y, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application 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.” New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal. App. 4th 206, 212, states, “Section 1008, subdivision (a) requires that a moti...
Recent Rulings on Motion to Reconsider
1-25 of 3796 results
Civil - Unlimited (180)
Motion Hearing (Civil) (187)
Status Conference (Civil) (16)
A. James Robertson Ii (104)
Andrew P Banks (8)
Bob Mcnatt (2)
Charlotte W. Woolard (64)
Christine A. Carringer (1)
David Mcdonald (7)
Deborah C Servino (15)
Deborah C. Servino (7)
Dept. 4 (2)
Dept. 6 (13)
Ernest H. Goldsmith (80)
Eddie C Sturgeon (23)
Elaine Lu Or Yolanda Orozco (37)
F. Clark Sueyres (2)
George V. Spanos (15)
Gerald Rosenberg (14)
Gregory Keosian (24)
Harold E. Kahn (145)
John P. Doyle (22)
Katherine Bacal (57)
Kristin S. Escalante (4)
Loretta Giorgi (35)
Marc D. Gross (19)
Michelle Williams Court (21)
Patrick J. Mahoney (96)
Paul Renne On February 24 (1)
Richard B. Ulmer (16)
Robert Moss (39)
Ronald E. Quidachay (270)
Rebecca Susan Riley (27)
Robert S. Draper (18)
Samantha P. Jessner (22)
Samuel T. Mcadam (6)
Thomas Anderle (55)
Timothy Taylor (34)
Vincent O'Neill (19)
William D. Stewart (39)
Contra Costa County, CA (162)
Fresno County, CA (57)
Los Angeles County, CA (1,009)
Nevada County, CA (15)
Orange County, CA (357)
Sacramento County, CA (150)
San Diego County, CA (327)
San Francisco County, CA (1,008)
Santa Clara County, CA (44)
Ventura County, CA (235)
VADIM MIESEGAES V. STEPHANIE CLENDENIN
Finally, Defendant’s opposition points out that any proper challenge to the award—either by a motion for reconsideration or appeal—has not been filed. Even if the Motion were to be considered a motion for reconsideration, it does not meet the statutory requirements of Code of Civil section 1008. It was not made within 10 days’ service of the attorney’s fees award, nor is it based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a).)
The court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte motion, as well as the subsequently filed ex parte motion for reconsideration. A memorandum exceeding the page limit “must be . . . considered in the same manner as a late-filed paper.” (Id. at (g).) As such, the court has discretion to refuse to consider these papers in ruling on the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1300(d).)
On February 10, 2020 Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for reconsideration of the court’s January 31, 2020 ruling. No opposition to has been filed.
Based on this record, the ten-day period to file a motion to reconsider began on that date. That being the case, the last date for Plaintiff was January 27, 2020. This motion was filed February 6, 2020. It is untimely, and the Court must deny the motion.
However, on the same date that the FAC was filed, Plaintiff also filed a notice of appeal of the November 22, 2019 order denying Plaintiff’s application for relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, in which Plaintiff sought relief from the denial of his late claim petition from OCFA and of the January 24, 2020 order denying Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.
CASE NUMBER: SC128174 MOTION: Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and motion for attorney fees motion for reconsideration Background This lawsuit was filed in October 2017. Plaintiff alleged that he served defendants on October 11, 2017 and obtained an entry of default on November 22, 2017. On November 13, 2017, however, defendant Jerome Chang received an automatic extension to file a demurrer so his answer was not due until December 20, 2017.
Additionally, “after entry of judgment, a trial court has no . . . power to rule on a motion for reconsideration. ‘A court may reconsider its order granting or denying a motion and may even reconsider or alter its judgment so long as judgment has not yet been entered. Once judgment has been entered, however the court may not reconsider it and loses its unrestricted power to change the judgment.
NGUYEN VS. TRAN
Plaintiff’s motion is a motion for reconsideration. It asks the Court to strike Cross-complainants Andrew D. Weiss and Sunny Duong’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Served on Tony Nguyen admitted and Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories. Plaintiff has made two previous unsuccessful requests for the same relief. (See ROAs 579 and 597). The motion also asks the Court to vacate its 2/6/20 ruling on those motions.
TATE V. GO, ET AL.
Motion for Appointment of Counsel; Motion for Reconsideration TENTATIVE RULING Parties to appear. CourtCall approved.
HIRAM ASH VS JACK IN THE BOX INC
Motion for Reconsideration On 2/25/20, Plaintiff filed this motion for reconsideration of the 2/04/20 order granting Defendant’s motion to transfer venue. Plaintiff argues there are new facts, circumstances, or law that justify reconsideration of the prior order.
First, since the prior motion was denied, Plaintiff was required to file a motion for reconsideration pursuant to CCP § 1008. The Court notes that Plaintiff apparently filed a motion for reconsideration but took that motion off calendar. Second, CCP § 473(d) does not constitute grounds for the requested relief because the dismissal is not void on its face. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to set aside dismissal is denied.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
LOLA VISUAL EFFECTS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS BRETT RATNER, AN INDIVIDUAL
On March 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s February 25, 2020 order. LEGAL STANDARD A party moving for reconsideration of an order must present new facts, circumstances or law in order to grant a motion for reconsideration. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd.(a); see also Mink v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1342.)
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied as premature under Ca. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1590(b) because there is no Order or Judgment for the Court to reconsider at this time. The Court will hear from counsel with regard to the Court's Indicated Ruling after Court Trial. The Court has received a request for Statement of Damages and the Court's deadline to issue a proposed Statement of Damages is July 13, 2020.
The present motion is an untimely and defective motion for reconsideration of this court’s prior order. The motion is DENIED. MOTION TO DECLARE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT Romero moves to declare all Plaintiffs in this action vexatious litigants. (Motion at p. 2.)
Therefore, the Court may not consider the instant Motion for Reconsideration. The Motion for Reconsideration is MOOT. Defendants to give notice. MOTIONS TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL Cal. Code of Civ.
The court treats this as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. In their opposition, Defendant argues that the Court should not consider this motion for reconsideration because Plaintiff has not complied with Civil Code section 1008(a). Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to present the court with an affidavit.
., Case No. 19STCV21671 Tentative Ruling re: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration Plaintiffs request the Court reconsider its award of discovery sanctions issued on March 11, 2010 in favor of Defendant Thurman Interim in the amount of $2,655.00. The motion is denied.
App. 4th 1233, 1236 (“after entry of judgment, a trial court has no further power to rule on a motion for reconsideration”); Betz v. Pankow (1993) 16 Cal. App. 4th 931, 937-38 (“Section 1008 is directed to interim rulings. Thus, a motion for reconsideration may only be considered before final judgment is entered and while the case is still pending in the trial court.” (Citations omitted.)).
., Debbie Bunch, Charlotte Ling, Richard Lorich, Jeanne Maumus, and Andrea Misserian (1) Motion for Reconsideration (filed on February 14, 2020) (2) Motion for Reconsideration (filed on February 18, 2020) The court considered the moving and opposition papers. RULING The motions are DENIED.
FHDI, LLC VS. AMERICAN LIFE CAPITAL, LLC
App. 4th 1, 16–17 [“Wiz's motion for reconsideration was filed one day beyond the statutory 10-day limitation period for filing a motion for reconsideration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a).) This alone could support the trial court's denial of the motion.”] As such, this Motion is untimely and is DENIED. (See Advanced Building Maintenance v. State Comp. Ins.
Conclusion Based on the foregoing, ISCM’s motion for reconsideration is denied. Firm Defendants are ordered to give notice of this order. DATED: July 6, 2020 ________________________________ Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 152 next last »