Opinion ID: 2518452
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Interpretation and application of sections 437c and 1008

Text: Plaintiffs urge us to adopt the line of cases represented by Kerns v. CSE Ins. Group, supra, 106 Cal.App.4th 368, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 754, which holds that sections 437c and 1008 validly limit the parties' ability to make repetitive motions but do not limit the court's authority to act on its own motion. They argue that this line of cases strikes the right balance between permissible legislation affecting court procedures and protection of the inherent power of the court to revisit a prior interim ruling on its own. Defendants urge us to adopt the view of the Court of Appeal here and the cases it relies on, which hold that notwithstanding sections 437c and 1008, a trial court has the inherent authority to revisit its previous orders, whether the court acts on its own motion or on motion of a party. They argue that the line plaintiffs draw between impermissible action by a court on a party's initiative and permissible action by a court on its own makes no constitutional sense. What is determinative is whether there is error to correct, not who discerns the error's existence. We agree with plaintiffs. Sections 437c and 1008 clearly limit the parties' ability to file repetitive motions. To the extent they only do that, they come within the Legislature's authority to enact statutes affecting the judicial branch. As one recent case noted, one need only peruse the Code of Civil Procedure to be reminded that numerous statutes govern the procedures litigants must follow in the courts of this state. ( Case v. Lazben Financial Co., supra, 99 Cal. App.4th at p. 184, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 405.) The separation of powers limitation on the Legislature's power to regulate procedure is narrow. Chaos could ensue if courts were generally able to pick and choose which provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to follow and which to disregard as infringing on their inherent powers. The same concern applies to the Evidence Code, which, after all, generally limits a court's ability to consider evidence. In most matters, the judicial branch must necessarily yield to the legislative power to enact statutes. ( County of Mendocino, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 54, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 837, 913 P.2d 1046, citing Brydonjack v. State Bar, supra, 208 Cal. at pp. 442-443, 281 P. 1018.) Only if a legislative regulation truly defeats or materially impairs the courts' core functions, including, as relevant here, their ability to resolve controversies, may a court declare it invalid. We agree with the court in Kerns v. CSE Ins. Group, supra, 106 Cal.App.4th at page 389, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 754, that by eliminating the distinction between a trial court's action taken sua sponte and that made in response to a litigant's motion, the more recent cases such as Remsen and Wozniak go too far toward eviscerating the clear jurisdictional language of section 1008, essentially rendering the provisions of the statute meaningless. This discussion would also apply to section 437c. These statutes serve a purpose. They are designed to conserve the court's resources by constraining litigants who would attempt to bring the same motion over and over. ( Darling, Hall & Rae v. Kritt, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at p. 1157, 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 676.) Limiting the parties' ability to file repetitive motions does not defeat, or even materially impair, the court's power to resolve specific controversies between parties. Indeed, such a limitation might increase the courts' efficiency. Accordingly, we uphold the statutes to the extent they apply to motions filed by the parties. Whether these statutes can validly limit the court's authority to act on its own motion to correct its own errors presents quite a different question. Such a limitation might go too far. If interpreted to limit the court's ability to reconsider its own rulings, these statutes might, as one court concluded, emasculate the judiciary's core power to decide controversies between parties. The legislative restriction of a court's ability to sua sponte reconsider its own rulings is not merely a reasonable regulation on judicial functions. Instead, such a restriction would directly and materially impair and defeat the court's most basic functions, exercising its discretion to rule upon controversies between the parties and ensuring the orderly administration of justice. Courts are empowered to decide controversies, a power derived from the state constitution. We are hard pressed to conceive of a restriction that goes more directly to the heart of a court's constitutionally mandated functions. Under [a strict] reading, if a court realizes it has misunderstood or misapplied the law, it is prohibited from revisiting its ruling, whether it realizes its mistake 10 minutes or 10 days later, and no matter how obvious its error or how draconian the effects of its misstep. `A court could not operate successfully under the requirement of infallibility in its interim rulings. Miscarriage of justice results where a court is unable to correct its own perceived legal errors....' ( Case v. Lazben Financial Co., supra, 99 Cal. App.4th at p. 185, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 405.) But we need not decide this constitutional question. Consistent with our common practice of construing statutes, when reasonable, to avoid difficult constitutional questions (see Myers v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 828, 846-847, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 40, 50 P.3d 751), we interpret the statutes the way many Courts of Appeal have done  as imposing a limitation on the parties' ability to file repetitive motions, but not on the court's authority to reconsider its prior interim rulings on its own motion. [4] Section 437c, subdivision (f)(2), can easily be so interpreted. On its face, that subdivision merely says that a party may not make a motion that violates its provisions. (Italics added.) It says nothing limiting the court's ability to act. The question is a bit more complex regarding section 1008. In two ways that statute and its legislative history suggest that it has a broader meaning and does restrict the court's authority to act on its own. (See Case v. Lazben Financial Co., supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at p. 188, 121 Cal. Rptr.2d 405.) First, section 1008, subdivision (c), added at the same time as subdivision (e), states that a court may reconsider a prior order on its own motion if it determines the law has changed. This subdivision contains a negative implication that the court may not reconsider such an order absent a change in the law. (See Clark v. Burleigh (1992) 4 Cal.4th 474, 489, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 455, 841 P.2d 975.) The expression of some things in a statute necessarily means the exclusion of other things not expressed. ( Gikas v. Zolin (1993) 6 Cal.4th 841, 852, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 500, 863 P.2d 745.) Second, at one stage of the legislative process, the bill was amended in the Senate to expressly provide that section 1008 shall not be construed to limit in any manner the right of a judge to exercise his or her own discretion in reconsidering any order he or she may have issued. (Sen. Amend. to Sen. Bill No. 1805 (1991-1992 Reg. Sess.) Apr. 21, 1992.) This amendment was later deleted in the Assembly, suggesting the Legislature may have wanted to limit the right of judges to act on their own. (Assem. Amend. to Sen. Bill No. 1805 (1991-1992 Reg. Sess.) July 9, 1992.) But these circumstances are not conclusive. The deletion of the amendment in the Assembly may have implied an intent to limit the court's authority, but it may instead merely have reflected an assessment that the discretionary language was superfluous. ( People v. Castello, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1249-1250, fn. 7, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 314.) Moreover, if subdivision (c) of section 1008 contains a negative implication, so, too, does subdivision (e) of that section, but one that points in the opposite direction as subdivision (c). Subdivision (e), the only part of section 1008 that expressly limits the court's jurisdiction, speaks only of the court's reconsideration of a party's motion and does not mention the court's ability to act on its own. Thus, its negative implication is that the Legislature did not intend any greater limitation on the court's jurisdiction. The maxim that the expression of some things necessarily means the exclusion of things not expressed is not immutable. ( People v. Anzalone (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1074, 1078-1079, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 315, 969 P.2d 160.) Here, we cannot give effect to both contradictory negative implications. Subdivision (e), the one dealing with the scope of the court's jurisdiction, supports a narrow interpretation of the statute more strongly than subdivision (c) supports a broad interpretation. As one court noted, [t]he plain language of section 1008 consistently refers to `applications' for reconsideration and `renewals' of previous motions. ( Case v. Lazben Financial Co., supra, 99 Cal. App.4th at p. 186, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 405.) Clearly, trial courts do not make applications, motions, or renewals of motions to themselves. ( Id. at p. 187, 121 Cal. Rptr.2d 405.) Moreover, we see no hint that the Legislature wanted to hinder the courts' ability to act rather than merely protect them from repetitive motions, or that it intended, as one court phrased it, to solve[ ] one set of problems by possibly creating another. ( Baldwin v. Home Savings of America, supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at p. 1200, fn. 10, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 592.) [T]he stated legislative purpose behind the 1992 amendment to section 1008 was to conserve judicial resources.... This legislative purpose is advanced if section 1008 is understood to apply to the actions of the parties, not to a court's sua sponte reconsideration of its own interim order. When the court rules upon a party's motion, it is to be expected that the losing party will often feel the court has erred, and therefore may be inclined to seek reconsideration if such a procedure is readily available. Thus, absent section 1008, trial courts might find themselves inundated with reconsideration motions requiring that they rehash issues upon which they have already ruled and about which they have no doubt. Section 1008, properly construed, protects trial courts from being forced to squander judicial time in this fashion. We think it would be a much less common occurrence, however, that a trial court would sua sponte conclude that its prior ruling was erroneous and seek to modify it. Forcing the parties to proceed where there is recognized error in the case would result in an enormous waste of the court's and the parties' resources. ( Case v. Lazben Financial Co., supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at p. 187, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 405.) This construction of the statutes also reconciles the earlier cases that had interpreted them as limiting the courts' jurisdiction. Significantly, all of these cases involved situations in which the disputed reconsideration, modification or reversal of a prior interim order was brought about upon the motion of a party litigant, and not by the trial court acting on its own motion. [Citations.] None of these cases addressed the specific question of whether and to what extent section 1008 may impair a trial court's inherent constitutional power sua sponte to reconsider, correct and change its own interim decisions. ( Kerns v. CSE Ins. Group, supra, 106 Cal.App.4th at pp. 390-391, 130 Cal. Rptr.2d 754, fn. omitted.) For these reasons, we distinguish, but do not disapprove, the early cases, beginning with Morite of California v. Superior Court, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th 485, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 666, that held that sections 437c and 1008 limit the court's power (or jurisdiction) to reconsider motions by the parties. We agree with the later line of cases, beginning with Darling, Hall & Rae v. Kritt, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th 1148, 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 676 (and, in dicta, People v. Castello, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th 1242, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 314), that interpreted the statutes as limiting the parties' power to file repetitive motions but not the court's authority to reconsider interim rulings on its own motion. Finally, we disapprove, to the extent they are inconsistent with this opinion, the line of cases that found the statutes unconstitutional even to the extent they limit the parties' ability to file repetitive motions. [5] We hold that sections 437c and 1008 limit the parties' ability to file repetitive motions but do not limit the court's ability, on its own motion, to reconsider its prior interim orders so it may correct its own errors. One court found the distinction between a court's acting on its own motion and its acting in response to a litigant's motion to be a distinction without a difference. ( Remsen v. Lavacot, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 427, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 612.) One of the commentaries is more specific: This may be a distinction without a difference because what if the losing party simply asks the court (e.g., at a status conference) to reconsider the matter? (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2004) § 9:327.8, p. 9(1)-107.) This concern is legitimate. If all that results from this distinction is that parties merely change the name of their motion from, as in this case, a motion for summary judgment to something like, motion for the court to reconsider on its own motion its previous order denying summary judgment, and the matter is otherwise litigated in routine fashion, then nothing of substance will be accomplished, and sections 437c, subdivision (f)(2), and 1008 will be rendered essentially meaningless. We believe, however, that the Legislature intended this to be a distinction with a difference. We cannot prevent a party from communicating the view to a court that it should reconsider a prior ruling (although any such communication should never be ex parte). We agree that it should not matter whether the judge has an unprovoked flash of understanding in the middle of the night ( Remsen v. Lavacot, supra, 87 Cal. App.4th at p. 427, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 612) or acts in response to a party's suggestion. If a court believes one of its prior interim orders was erroneous, it should be able to correct that error no matter how it came to acquire that belief. For example, nothing would prevent the losing party from asking the court at a status conference to reconsider a ruling. (See Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial, supra, § 9:327.8, p. 9(1)-107.) But a party may not file a written motion to reconsider that has procedural significance if it does not satisfy the requirements of section 437c, subdivision (f)(2), or 1008. The court need not rule on any suggestion that it should reconsider a previous ruling and, without more, another party would not be expected to respond to such a suggestion. As one court explained, were a party to suggest that the court reconsider a motion, the court would have every right to do so, even if that required the party to bring a new motion. In that circumstance, the responding party would not bear the burden of preparing opposition unless the court indicated an interest in reconsideration. ( Schachter v. Citigroup, Inc., supra, 126 Cal.App.4th at p. 739, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 920.) Unless the requirements of section 437c, subdivision (f)(2), or 1008 are satisfied, any action to reconsider a prior interim order must formally begin with the court on its own motion. To be fair to the parties, if the court is seriously concerned that one of its prior interim rulings might have been erroneous, and thus that it might want to reconsider that ruling on its own motion  something we think will happen rather rarely  it should inform the parties of this concern, solicit briefing, and hold a hearing. (See Abassi v. Welke, supra, 118 Cal.App.4th at p. 1360, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 336 [The trial court invited Welke to file a second summary judgment motion indicating it wanted to reassess its prior ruling.... The parties had an opportunity to brief the issue, and a hearing was held.]; Schachter v. Citigroup, Inc., supra, 126 Cal.App.4th at p. 739, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 920.) Then, and only then, would a party be expected to respond to another party's suggestion that the court should reconsider a previous ruling. This procedure provides a reasonable balance between the conflicting goals of limiting repetitive litigation and permitting a court to correct its own erroneous interim orders.