Court Opinion

ID: 9916760
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 17:02:57.844169+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:57.614181
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/9/24 Fair v. WV 23 Jumpstart CA1/3

                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or
ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

          IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                      FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                DIVISION THREE

 R. THOMAS FAIR,                                                         A165418

           Plaintiff and Appellant,                                      (San Mateo County
                                                                         Super. Ct. No. CIV460438)
 v.

 WV 23 JUMPSTART, LLC,                                                   ORDER MODIFYING
                                                                         OPINION
           Defendant and Respondent.                                     [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

THE COURT*:
         It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on December 18, 2023, be
modified in the following particulars:
         1.        The portion of the opinion beginning with the following sentence
on the bottom of page 6: “We can think of no reason that the expiration of a
judgment would not similarly be a defense if an independent action were
brought on that judgment. . .” through and including the following sentence
at the start of the final paragraph on page 7: “In any case, Fair’s argument
fails on the merits,” is deleted and replaced with the following:

               We can think of no reason that the expiration of a judgment
         would not similarly be a defense if an independent action were brought
         on that judgment. Under former section 683.170, the specific statutory

         * Tucher, P.J., Fujisaki, J., and Rodríguez, J. participated in the decision.

                                                               1
        provision governing motions to vacate the renewal of a judgment, the
        motion thus was untimely. (See Goldman v. Simpson (2008) 160
        Cal.App.4th 255, 261 [motion to vacate renewal of judgment untimely
        when brought almost six months after renewal].)
               Fair did not file a reply brief responding to WV 23’s argument
        that the motion to vacate was untimely. But at oral argument, he
        belatedly contended the time limit of former section 683.170 does not
        apply because his challenge is to the fundamental jurisdiction of the
        trial court to rule on an application to renew the expired judgment.
        The authority he cited for this proposition, WV 23 Jumpstart, LLC v.
        Mynarcik (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 596, in the context of a similar
        provision in the Sister State Money Judgments Act (§ 1710.10 et seq.;
        see § 1710.40, subd. (a)), explains briefly that “a judgment debtor may
        challenge a judgment based on a lack of ‘fundamental jurisdiction’ at
        any time, regardless of the 30-day rule set forth in the Act.” (Mynarcik,
        at p. 606, fn. 3.) The question in Mynarcik was whether the California
        court had personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtor, a matter that
        clearly implicates the court’s fundamental jurisdiction. (Id. at pp. 602,
        606.) In a petition for rehearing, Fair cites additional authorities he
        contends support his position. (Kabran v. Sharp Memorial Hospital
        (2017) 2 Cal.5th 330, 339; Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Renda (2009) 177
        Cal.App.4th 14, 16-17; Goldman v. Simpson, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th at
        p. 264.)
               Whatever the correct resolution of this threshold issue, Fair’s
        appeal fails on the merits.

        2.       The second sentence of the final paragraph on page 10 of the
opinion currently reads, “Counsel contended that the clerk’s notation, and not
some separately filed document, was the entry of judgment.” That sentence
is modified to read:
             Counsel contended that this action, and not the filing of some
        separate document, was the entry of judgment.

        These modifications do not effect a change in the judgment.

Dated:_ January 9, 2024___                     _____TUCHER, P.J.____
                                               Presiding Justice
Fair v. WV 23 Jumpstart, LLC (A165418)

                                           2
Filed 12/18/23 Fair v. WV 23 Jumpstart CA1/3 (unmodified opinion)

                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or
ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

          IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                      FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                DIVISION THREE

 R. THOMAS FAIR,
           Plaintiff and Appellant,
                                                                         A165418
 v.
 WV 23 JUMPSTART, LLC,                                                   (San Mateo County
                                                                         Super. Ct. No. CIV460438)
           Defendant and Respondent.

         After a civil judgment is entered, it is enforceable for only 10 years
unless, within that period, the judgment creditor renews the judgment.
(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 683.020, 683.130, subd. (a).)1 The question underlying
these proceedings is whether a judgment was entered a few days before or a
few days after that cutoff date.
         Old Port Lobster Company, Inc. obtained a judgment against appellant
R. Thomas Fair in August 2011; that is not in dispute. The parties disagree,
however, about whether the operative judgment is an order granting a
motion for entry of judgment entered on August 12, 2011, or a document
entitled “Judgment” entered two weeks later, on August 26, 2011. That

         1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil

Procedure.

                                                               1
matters because the judgment creditor’s assignee did not renew the judgment
until August 18, 2021: if the judgment was entered on August 12 rather than
August 26, 2011, then the assignee missed the 10-year cutoff and could no
longer enforce the judgment. The trial court concluded the August 26, 2011
document was the judgment and the renewal was timely.
      In later proceedings, Fair contended that some of his assets were
exempt from levy, sought reconsideration of the trial court’s order denying his
claim of exemption, and sought to have the renewed judgment vacated. The
trial court ruled against him on each of these matters. Fair appeals, and we
affirm.
              FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
      An action was brought in 2007 against three defendants, Old Port
Lobster Company, Inc., Russell Deutsch and Lynn Deutsch (collectively, Old
Port). Old Port in turn filed a cross-complaint against Fair and another
person. The parties in 2008 agreed to dismiss all causes of action except Old
Port’s cross-complaint against Fair.
      In 2009, the parties settled Old Port’s claim against Fair for $300,000,
payable by Fair in installments. It appears that Fair did not satisfy the
payment schedule. In June 2011, Old Port moved for an order entering the
settlement agreement as a judgment and enforcing the agreement.
      This dispute hinges on the events that happened when the trial court
ruled on the motion. The hearing on the motion was held on July 11, 2011.
The minute order states that the motion was granted and Old Port was
directed to prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling. On
August 11, the trial court signed an “Order Granting [Old Port’s] Motion for
Order Enforcing Settlement Agreement and Entry of Judgment.”2 The order

      2   Block capitalization of court document titles omitted throughout.

                                        2
recited that “IT IS HEREBY ORDERED” that “[Old Port]’s Motion is
granted,” and that the terms of the settlement agreement “shall be entered as
judgment against R. Thomas Fair as follows: [¶] . . . [J]udgment shall be
entered against R. Thomas Fair in the amount of $300,000 less the $47,000
he did pay in March of 2009, or $253,000, together with interest at the legal
rate of $10% per annum on $253,000 from April 1, 2009, to the date of the
hearing on the Motion of July 11, 2011, for a total monetary judgment of
$310,670.14, payable to [Old Port] immediately.” The order was filed on
August 12, 2011. The “Disposition Events” portion of the clerk’s docket
indicates that judgment was entered on that date.
      A minute order dated August 23, 2011, indicates there was a hearing
on an order to show cause “RE: DISMISSAL Of The Cross Complaint in its
entirety,” and that Old Port’s counsel said he would enter judgment. On
August 25, 2011, the trial court signed a document entitled “Judgment,”
which ordered Fair to pay Old Port $310,670.14, and the document was filed
on August 26, 2011. The clerk’s docket reflects entry of judgment on that
date, as well. The following month, Old Port’s counsel served Fair with, and
then filed, a Notice of Entry of Judgment, attaching the judgment that had
been “entered by the Court on August 26, 2011.”
      Old Port Lobster Company was apparently dissolved in 2017, and in
August 2021 its successors-in-interest, Russell and Lynn Deutsch, assigned
their interest in the judgment to WV 23 Jumpstart, LLC (WV 23). According
to the assignment, Fair had not satisfied the judgment.
      WV 23 filed an “Application for and Renewal of Judgment” on August
18, 2021, seeking the amount of the judgment and interest, for a total of
$620,807.30. The renewed judgment was entered on the same date. The
renewal of the judgment was served on Fair by mail on August 18, 2021. The

                                      3
court later issued writs of execution for accounts in Santa Clara County and
Marin County.
       Fair filed claims of exemption from the levies, contending that the
judgment was purportedly renewed more than 10 years after the original
judgment and, as to one of the accounts, that the funds on deposit included
Social Security benefits that were exempt from levy. A hearing on the claims
took place on January 14, 2022. Fair argued that the order entered on
August 12, 2011 was the operative judgment. The trial court rejected this
argument, concluding the actual judgment was that dated August 26, 2011
and that the judgment was timely renewed within 10 years of that date. It
also concluded Fair had not met his burden to show that one of his accounts
included exempt Social Security benefits. It accordingly denied his claim of
exemption.
       WV 23 moved ex parte for an order to liquidate the securities in Fair’s
account with Charles Schwab. On February 25, 2022, the trial court granted
the motion.
       On March 15, 2022, Fair filed a motion seeking to vacate the renewed
judgment, to quash the writs of execution, and to reconsider the orders
determining the claims of exemptions and the order to liquidate securities.
The trial court held a hearing on May 13, 2022, at which it denied the motion,
ruling that Fair had not established that the renewed judgment was
untimely. As to the request for reconsideration, the court denied it,
concluding that Fair failed to present new or different facts, circumstances, or
law.
       Fair filed a notice of appeal on June 10, 2022, indicating the appeal was
from February 1 and February 25, 2022 orders determining the claims of
exemption concerning his accounts at Charles Schwab and Heritage

                                       4
Commerce Bank, the February 25, 2022 order granting WV 23’s motion to
liquidate securities, and the May 24, 2022 order on his motion to vacate the
renewed judgment and for reconsideration of the earlier orders.
                                 DISCUSSION
   I. Denial of Motion to Vacate Renewed Judgment
      In general, a money judgment is enforceable for only 10 years after the
date of entry. (§ 683.020.) An application for renewal of the judgment may
be filed before this 10-year period expires. (§ 683.130, subd. (a).) A party
may seek to have the renewal of the judgment vacated “on any ground that
would be a defense to an action on the judgment.” (§ 683.170, subd. (a), italics
added.) Under the law in effect when the judgment was renewed, the motion
had to be brought within 30 days after service of the notice of renewal, a
notice that must be on a form prescribed by the Judicial Council and inform
the judgment debtor that any motion to vacate or modify the renewal must be
made within that period. (Former § 683.170, subd. (b); see former § 683.160.)
      A party seeking to vacate a renewed judgment has the burden of proof
by a preponderance of the evidence. (American Contractors Indemnity Co.
v. Hernandez (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 845, 848.) We review the trial court’s
decision for abuse of discretion, viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the decision and deferring to its resolution of factual conflicts;
however, we review questions of law de novo. (Ibid.)
      Fair contends the trial erred in denying his motion to vacate the
renewed judgment because the August 18, 2021 renewal was untimely. That
is, he argues, the August 12, 2011 order constituted the operative judgment
because it was a final determination of the rights of the parties, and the trial
court had no jurisdiction to enter another judgment on August 26, 2011. As a
result, he urges, the judgment was renewed too late.

                                        5
      WV 23 argues the motion to vacate the renewed judgment was itself
untimely because it was brought outside the 30-day time period for such a
motion. Although WV 23 did not make this argument in the trial court, we
have discretion to consider it, and on this clear record we will do so. (Ward v.
Taggart (1959) 51 Cal.2d 736, 742; Sheller v. Superior Court (2008) 158
Cal.App.4th 1697, 1709.)
      Notice of the renewal was served on August 18, 2021; it was on the
Judicial Council form and it informed Fair he must move to vacate or modify
the renewal within 30 days if he objected to the renewal, thus complying with
the statutory requirements for the notice. (See § 683.160, subd. (a).) Fair did
not move to vacate the renewed judgment until March 15, 2022, far past the
statutory deadline to bring the motion. (Former § 683.170, subd. (b).) At oral
argument, Fair contended that his motion to vacate the judgment did not fall
within the ambit of former section 683.170 because it was not an attack on
the validity of the judgment as originally entered. But nothing in the terms
of the statute indicates it is so limited. Indeed, section 683.170, subdivision
(a) specifies that a judgment “may be vacated on any ground that would be a
defense to an action on the judgment.” Thus, events after entry of judgment
may support vacation of a renewal of judgment. (See, e.g., In re Marriage of
Thompson (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1058 [accord and satisfaction of
judgment is defense to action on judgment for purposes of § 683.170,
subd. (a)]; see also Fidelity Creditor Service, Inc. v. Browne (2001) 89
Cal.App.4th 195, 201 [in seeking to vacate renewal of judgment, judgment
debtor may “assert any defense that could have been asserted in an
independent action” on the judgment].) We can think of no reason that the
expiration of a judgment would not similarly be a defense if an independent
action were brought on that judgment. The specific statutory provision

                                        6
governing motions to vacate the renewal of a judgment thus establishes that
the motion was untimely. (See Goldman v. Simpson (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th
255, 261 [motion to vacate renewal of judgment untimely when brought
almost six months after renewal].)
      But, Fair also contended at oral argument, the time limit of former
section 683.170 does not apply because his challenge is to the fundamental
jurisdiction of the court. The authority he cited for this proposition, WV 23
Jumpstart, LLC v. Mynarcik (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 596, in the context of a
similar provision in the Sister State Money Judgments Act (§ 1710.10 et seq.;
see § 1710.40, subd. (a)), explains briefly that “a judgment debtor may
challenge a judgment based on a lack of ‘fundamental jurisdiction’ at any
time, regardless of the 30-day rule set forth in the Act.” (Mynarcik, at p. 606,
fn. 3.) The question in Mynarcik was whether the California court had
personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtor, a matter that clearly
implicates the court’s fundamental jurisdiction. (Id. at pp. 602, 606.) But
Fair has drawn our attention to no authority indicating that this principle
applies equally to renewal of a judgment after the 10-year period has passed.
      In any case, Fair’s argument fails on the merits. The motion to enforce
the settlement agreement as a judgment was made under section 664.6,
which authorizes a court, upon motion, to “enter judgment pursuant to the
terms of the settlement.” (§ 664.6, subd. (a).) This provision contemplates
entry of a formal judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement
agreement. (See Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182–1183; see
also Corkland v. Boscoe (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 989, 995.) A case upon which
Fair relies, Casa de Valley View Owner’s Assn. v. Stevenson (1985) 167
Cal.App.3d 1182, 1193, distinguishes “ ‘rendition’ or giving of judgment” from
“the ‘entry’ of a judgment which is merely a ministerial act,” explaining that

                                       7
under section 664.6, “the granting of the motion constituted the rendition of a
judgment”; that is, “the judgment is ‘rendered’ as soon as the decision is
entered in the minutes of the court,” but that act was separate from “entry of
a formal judgment reflecting the court’s rendition of judgment in conformity
with the stipulated settlement.”
      Fair argues, however, that the order entered on August 12, 2011 was a
judgment because it was a “final determination of the rights of the parties in
an action or proceeding” (§ 577), and that the trial court accordingly lacked
jurisdiction to enter judgment later, on August 26. (See Ramon v. Aerospace
Corp. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1237 [trial court cannot correct judicial
error after judgment except in accordance with statutory proceedings].) For
this argument, he relies on Passavanti v. Williams (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d
1602, 1606, which explains that “ ‘[s]ome determinations, though
characterized as “orders,” are in effect final judgments for purposes of appeal
and res judicata.’ . . . The fundamental distinction remains . . . that a
judgment, no matter how designated, is the final determination of the rights
of the parties in an action. Thus, an ‘order’ which is the final determination
in the action is the judgment.” The specific question before the appellate
court in Passavanti was whether a motion for reconsideration of an “ ‘Order
Granting Motion for Summary Judgment And Judgment’ ” extended the time
to appeal; in answering that question in the negative, the court characterized
the order as actually a judgment, explaining that the document was an “order
and judgment” and that the document noted on its face that “the judgment
was entered on the date filed” in the judgment book. (Id. at pp. 1604–1605.)
      Passavanti is readily distinguishable. The August 12, 2011, order
granting Old Port’s motion neither is denominated a judgment nor indicates
that the court had entered judgment. Rather, by its terms the order

                                        8
contemplated a future event—that judgment “shall be entered” against Fair,
not that it is or was entered. And it appears that the court itself was not of
the view that judgment had been entered: a week later, at a hearing before a
different judge regarding dismissal of the cross-complaint, counsel for Old
Port stated he would arrange for entry of judgment, and he did so three days
later.
         Fair also relies on Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com. (2001) 25
Cal.4th 688, but that case does not assist him. The pertinent question there
was whether a ruling that disposed of all causes of action framed by the
pleadings was an appealable judgment. Our high court ruled, “[w]hen, as
here, a trial court’s order from which an appeal has been taken disposes of
the entire action, the order ‘may be amended so as to convert it into a
judgment encompassing actual determinations of all remaining issues by the
trial court, . . . and the notice of appeal may then be treated as a premature
but valid appeal from the judgment.’ ” (Id. at p. 700.)
         In the context of a motion under section 664.6, the court in Critzer v.
Enos (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1242, employed a similar procedure. The trial
court there, faced with competing settlement agreements submitted by the
parties, made an order that one of the proposed agreements “ ‘[would be
ordered] binding on the parties as an Order of this Court.’ ” (Id. at pp. 1247–
1248.) The appellant appealed, and the respondent argued the order was not
appealable and asked the appellate court to dismiss the appeal. (Id. at
p. 1250.) The Court of Appeal declined this request. It concluded the order
finally determined the rights of the parties, leaving nothing left to do but
enforce the order. (Id. at pp. 1251–1252.) However, the court explained, “it
would have been preferable for the court to have disposed of the
[respondent’s] motion by entering judgment as specified in section 664.6.”

                                          9
(Id. at p. 1252.) The court therefore amended the order to include an
appealable judgment in order to expedite appellate review. (Ibid., citing
Hines v. Lukes, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 1183.)
      Thus, in each of these cases, even where an order disposed of all issues
between the parties, the court still recognized the role of a formal judgment.
We are satisfied that, although the August 12, 2011 order granting Old Port’s
motion determined the parties’ rights, the trial court did not err in concluding
the judgment for purposes of section 664.6 was the formal judgment entered
on August 26, 2011. The renewal of judgment on August 18, 2021 was
therefore timely.
      In reaching this conclusion, we recognize that the trial court’s docket
contains entries stating that judgment was entered on August 12, 2011 and
on August 26, 2011. But these notes by a clerk do not change the meaning of
the documents the court actually signed. (See Wilson v. Los Angeles County
Employees Assn. (1954) 127 Cal.App.2d 285, 289–290 [clerical error in date of
entry of judgment should not operate to prejudice party].) The order the
judge signed on August 12 directed that certain terms “shall be entered as
judgment.” This order was complied with two weeks later, when judgment
formally entered.
      At oral argument, Fair asserted that the court’s August 12 order was a
direction to the clerk to enter judgment, which the clerk complied with by
immediately noting in the electronic docket that judgment was entered.
Counsel contended that the clerk’s notation, and not some separately filed
document, was the entry of judgment. In support of this argument, he cited
section 668.5, which directs the clerk, in a court that does not keep a
judgment book, to enter judgment in the register of actions or data processing
system. But a close reading of section 668.5 refutes counsel’s argument. The

                                       10
statute describes the clerk as “plac[ing] . . . the judgment in the file of
actions,” and it specifies that “the date of filing the judgment with the clerk
shall constitute the date of its entry.” (§ 668.5, italics added.) This language
makes clear that “the judgment” is not a clerk’s notation but a document that
must be filed with the clerk. (See Olson v. La Jolla Neurological Associates
(2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 723, 732 [“the clerk’s notation alone was not a valid
judgment in the absence of a corresponding file-stamped document”]; Ten
Eyck v. Industrial Forklifts Co. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 540, 544 [§ 668.5
requires “that the judgment be signed by the judge and file stamped by the
clerk”].) We have already concluded the August 12 order was not the
judgment, so the clerk’s entry on that date did not constitute entry of
judgment. Rather, judgment was entered when the clerk filed the signed
judgment on August 26, 2011.
      Fair objects that the quantity of prejudgment interest included in the
August 12 order was calculated to be current through July 11, 2011,
reflecting the court’s intent that judgment be entered “concurrently with the
court’s ruling” rather than at a hypothetical future date. But this is an
argument for counting July 11 as the date on which judgment was entered,
and neither party contends that it is the date of the oral pronouncement of
judgment that governs.
      In a further attempt to establish that the August 12 order was an
enforceable judgment, Fair points out that it describes the $310,670.14
judgment as “payable to [Old Port] immediately.” But Fair takes this
language out of context. The quoted language appears in the order as part of
the terms of the judgment that the order instructs “shall be entered” against
Fair. In sum, judgment was rendered on July 11; ordered on August 12; and
then signed on August 25 and formally entered on August 26.

                                        11
      WV 23 also argues Fair’s challenge to the validity of the renewed
judgment is moot because the trial court ruled against Fair on this issue on
January 14, 2022, when considering his claim of exemption, and, WV 23
asserts, Fair did not appeal from the January 14 order. Because we rule
against Fair on other grounds, we need not reach this question.
   II. Denial of Motion for Reconsideration
      Fair contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion
for reconsideration of the orders determining his claims for exemptions and
liquidating securities, a denial made on the ground that Fair failed to present
new or different facts, circumstances, or law.
      The motion for reconsideration was brought under section 1008,
subdivision (a), which provides that any party affected by an order may apply
for reconsideration based on new or different facts, circumstances, or law
within 10 days after service of notice of entry of the order. The trial court
explained in its tentative ruling that the motion was untimely under this
provision, but that to the extent it was brought under subdivision (b) of the
same statute—which authorizes a party who originally applied for an order to
make a subsequent application on new or different facts, circumstances, or
law—the motion was timely. Nevertheless, the court concluded, Fair’s
motion failed because he did not explain why the additional documents on
which he relied to show that some of the funds in his bank account were
exempt from levy could not have been presented at the time of the original
hearing. At the hearing on the motion for reconsideration, the trial court
adopted the tentative ruling, and the order it signed relied only on the lack of
new facts, circumstances, or law in denying reconsideration.
      On appeal, Fair argues that the motion for reconsideration was not
untimely under subdivision (a) of section 1008. Whatever the outcome of that

                                       12
inquiry, we need not resolve it on appeal because the trial court treated the
motion as timely, albeit under a different subdivision, and it denied the
motion on a ground equally applicable to both provisions.
      Fair agues, however, that the trial court abused its discretion in
determining he did not provide a satisfactory explanation for his failure to
provide the new evidence earlier. Inexplicably, WV 23 ignores this argument
completely in its respondent’s brief. Nevertheless, a judgment is presumed
correct, and Fair has the burden to show prejudicial error or abuse of
discretion. (Scheenstra v. California Dairies, Inc. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 370,
403; Nielsen v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318, 324.) He has not done so.
      The motion for reconsideration was directed to the trial court’s orders
denying Fair’s claims for exemption from levy and directing liquidation of his
Charles Schwab account. He submitted additional evidence to support both
his claim that the renewed judgment should be vacated and that he was
entitled to an exemption of $9,444.53, an amount he alleged reflected exempt
Social Security benefits in his bank account. (See § 704.080; 42 U.S.C. § 407.)
The additional evidence included redacted copies of Fair’s Heritage Bank of
Commerce account statements and an analysis that Fair had prepared, which
traced the Social Security benefits deposited into that bank account and the
ending account balance for each month in an effort to show that the
accumulated balance of Social Security benefits remained in the account.
      A party seeking reconsideration of an order based on new evidence
must provide “a ‘ “ ‘satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce that
evidence at an earlier time.’ ” ’ ” (Shiffer v. CBS Corp. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th
246, 255.) We review denial of a motion for reconsideration based on new
evidence for abuse of discretion. (Ibid.; New York Times Co. v. Superior Court
(2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212.)

                                       13
        We see no abuse of discretion here. The trial court’s conclusion that
Fair had not satisfactorily explained his failure to provide the new evidence
earlier was limited to his failure to present documentation about his claim
that some of the funds in his bank account were exempt from levy. On this
record, the trial court could reasonably conclude Fair failed to show he could
not have presented his account statements and his analysis of the source of
his income at the January 14, 2022 hearing. His declaration stated merely
that before the January 14 hearing he had submitted what he believed were
the relevant portions of his account statements, and that he was providing
additional statements and a tracing analysis so the court could reconsider his
claim for exemption of funds attributable to his Social Security benefits. He
made no claim that this information was not reasonably available to him
before the January 14, 2022 hearing, and he provided no other explanation
for not producing it earlier. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in
concluding Fair did not make the showing necessary to warrant
reconsideration.
                                         DISPOSITION
        The judgment is affirmed. Respondent shall recover its costs on appeal.

                                                  TUCHER, P.J.

WE CONCUR:

FUJISAKI, J.
RODRÍGUEZ, J.

Fair v. WV 23 Jumpstart, LLC (A165418)

                                             14