Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 20STCV40969, Date: 2024-05-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV40969    Hearing Date: May 28, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On October 26, 2020, Plaintiff Kyle Sturdivant (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint for a wrongful death action involving a pedestrian and motor vehicle.

On March 26, 2024, the Court, in Department 1 reviewed the Long Cause Trial Submission and accepted this case as a Long Cause trial. (Min. Order, 3/26/24.)

On April 3, 2024, at the direction of the Master Calendar Department, Department 1, the case was assigned to Judge Ruth Ann Kwan, Department 89, Stanley Mosk Courthouse for trial. (Min. Order, 4/3/24.) Trial is currently scheduled for June 3, 2024 in Department 89.

On April 10, 2024, Defendants Galpin Motors, Inc. and Paige Dorian, Inc. (“Defendants”) filed the instant motion for reconsideration of the March 26, 2024 and April 3, 2024 orders. Plaintiff opposes and Defendants reply.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 provides, in pertinent part:   

“(a) 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 an 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.  

… 

(e)¿This section specifies the court’s jurisdiction with regard to applications for reconsideration of its orders and renewals of previous motions, and applies to all applications to reconsider any order of a judge or court, or for the renewal of a previous motion, whether the order deciding the previous matter or motion is interim or final. No application to reconsider any order or for the renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to this section.”  

(Code Civ. Proc. section 1008, subds. (a), (b), (e).)   

A motion for reconsideration under Section 1008 requires that the moving party present new or different facts that were not previously considered by the Court. (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212-13.) However, 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.” (Id.; Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 830, 833 [finding that Section 1008 imposes the special requirement of having to not only show new or different facts, circumstances, or law, but also to “show diligence with a satisfactory explanation for not presenting the new or different information earlier…”].)¿¿A disagreement with a ruling is not a new fact that will support the granting of a motion for reconsideration. (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.)  

If the above statutory requirements are met, reconsideration should be granted. However, a court is not required to change its decision upon reconsideration. (Corns v. Miller (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 195, 202.) Although parties may move for reconsideration only as authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, the statute “do[es] not limit the court's ability, on its own motion, to reconsider its prior interim orders so it may correct its own errors.” (Le Francois v. Goel¿(2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1107.)  

Code of Civil Procedure section 128(a)(8) provides: “Every court shall have the power to do all of the following: . . . (8) To amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice.”

DISCUSSION

Defendants argue that Plaintiff has listed 16 trial witnesses for damages, amounting to 39 hours of direct and cross examination. On August 10, 2023, Defendants filed a pending motion in limine number 11, which seeks to exclude this testimony as cumulative. Defendants argue the Court should reconsider the order determining a long cause trial in light of the pending motion in limine.

Defendants’ argument is based on a pending motion in limine that has not been decided, and that was pending at the time the matter was referred from this department to Department 1. If the motion is denied, Defendants concede that the matter is properly a long cause matter. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise its authority under Code of Civil Procedure section 128(a)(8) to re-set this matter as a Personal Injury Hub trial. To the extent Defendants request that Department 1 reconsider its prior orders, the motion is not properly filed in the correct department.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration.

Defendants shall provide notice and file a proof of service of such.