Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 20CHCV00307, Date: 2024-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 20CHCV00307    Hearing Date: March 15, 2024    Dept: F51

Dept. F-51¿¿ 

Date: 3/15/24 

Case #20CHCV00307

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F-51

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

¿ 

Motion Filed: 2/16/24

¿ 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Anica Barbosa, an individual (in pro per) (“Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Walter Martin, Trustee for the Gesner L. Martin Living Trust (“Plaintiff”)

NOTICE: NOT OK (misstates the date of the underlying Court ruling)

¿ 

RELIEF REQUESTED: Reconsideration of the Court’s 2/6/24 Order denying Defendant’s motion for terminating and monetary sanctions against Plaintiff.

¿ 

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is denied.

BACKGROUND¿ 

On 3/24/20, Plaintiff entered into a month-to-month lease agreement with Defendant for certain premises located at 11967 Adelphia Street, Pacoima, California 91331. According to Plaintiff, Defendant took “premature possession” of the premises on 3/28/20, and blocked Plaintiff from showing the premises to prospective buyers. Defendant also allegedly breached the lease by failing to perform certain agreed-upon tenant improvements, and failing to pay the security deposit, late charges, or the rent due in May 2020 and thereafter.

On 3/19/20, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant for Breach of Lease Contract. Defendant answered the complaint on 8/4/20 and filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff for Breach of Warranty of Habitability, Negligent Maintenance of Premises, Nuisance, Breach of Quiet Enjoyment, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Intrusion into Seclusion, Violation of Privacy, Promissory Estoppel, Breach of Contract, and Fraud. On 8/24/20, Plaintiff answered the cross-complaint.

On 8/5/22, Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint, alleging against Defendant the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Lease Contract; (2) Fraudulent Concealment; (3) Fraud in the Inducement; and (4) Intentional Misrepresentation.

On 2/6/24, the Court denied Defendant’s motion for terminating and monetary sanctions against Plaintiff. On 2/16/24, Defendant filed the instant motion for reconsideration. On 3/4/24, Plaintiff filed his opposition. No reply has been filed to date.

ANALYSIS

“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 Civ. Proc. § 1008, subd. (a).)

A.    Underlying Motion for Sanctions

An attorney who files a pleading, motion, or similar paper with the court must sign the document, which implicitly certifies the pleading has legal and factual merit. (Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7, subd. (a).) The signature reflects the certification of the attorney that the pleading is not being presented for an improper purpose; the legal contentions are warranted by law or nonfrivolous argument for extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; the allegations and factual contentions have evidentiary support or are likely to have such support after a reasonable opportunity to further investigate; and the denials or factual contentions are warranted by the evidence. (Id. at subd. (b).) An attorney or party who violates any of these certifications is subject to sanctions. (Id. at subd. (c).)

In her underlying motion for sanctions, Defendant argued that Plaintiff had no legal authority to bring the instant action, as he was suspended as the successor trustee for the Gesner L. Martin Living Trust by Court order on 3/6/19. (Ex. B to Def.’s Sanctions Mot.) Plaintiff argued in opposition that “the validity and service of that [3/6/19] Order are what are important.” (Pl.’s Sanctions Mot. Opp. 3:7.) This Court declined to make any determinations regarding the validity and service of the 3/6/19 Order in LASC Case No. 18AVPB00069, which are not within its jurisdiction, and notes that on 11/11/23, “the Lancaster Probate Court denied Walter Martin's Ex Parte Application [to vacate the 3/6/19 Order] and granted his niece, Chevon Martin’s Petition to Remove Walter Martin as Trustee of the Gesner Martin Revocable Living Trust and install Chevon Martin instead as the current Trustee.” (Id. at 5:18–22.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court determined that Plaintiff does not have the legal standing to maintain the instant action because he is no longer the real party in interest as the trustee of the Gesner Martin Revocable Living Trust. However, this fact alone was insufficient to warrant terminating sanctions against Plaintiff. “An action or proceeding does not abate by the transfer of an interest in the action or proceeding or by any other transfer of an interest. The action or proceeding may be continued in the name of the original party, or the court may allow the person to whom the transfer is made to be substituted in the action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 368.5.)

As Plaintiff observed, “Defendant’s argument centers only on what whether Walter Martin, as the representative of the Gesner Trust, could have prosecuted this case, not that she is not factually and legally responsible for Gesner Martin Revocable Living Trust (the Real Party in Interest’s) monetary damages.” (Pl.’s Sanctions Mot. Opp. 6:10–15.)

The Court heard and considered both the parties’ written and oral arguments, and ultimately denied Defendant’s motion for sanctions. (2/6/24 Min. Order.)

B.     Grounds for Reconsideration

Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 allows a party to seek reconsideration of an order based on new or different facts, circumstances, or law. However, “a motion for reconsideration has a limited role as Code Civ. Proc. § 1008 gives the court no authority when deciding whether to grant a motion to reconsider to ‘reevaluate’ or ‘reanalyze’ facts and authority already presented in the earlier motion.” (Cal. Law & Motion Authorities § 4:13; Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.) New law does not mean new law without retroactive effect or a claim the court misinterpreted the law. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008, subd. (f).)

The moving party bears the burden to not only demonstrate the grounds for reconsideration, but also provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure to present earlier the new circumstances, evidence, or law. (Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 830, 833.) Here, as Plaintiff observes, Defendant does not, by required affidavit or otherwise, present any “new or different facts, circumstances, or law” that was not previously presented and considered by the Court in connection with Defendant’s underlying motion for sanctions. (Pl.’s Opp. 1:22–27.) The Court further notes that Defendant does not state any reason for her failure to present any such new facts, circumstances, or law at the previous hearing.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendant has not met her burden to show any grounds for reconsideration of the Court’s 2/6/24 Order denying her motion for terminating and monetary sanctions against Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s motion for reconsideration.

CONCLUSION¿ 

The motion is denied.