Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 21STCV46677, Date: 2023-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV46677    Hearing Date: August 22, 2023    Dept: 52

Tentative Ruling:

Defendant Esai Raymundo’s Motion for Reconsideration

Defendant Esai Raymundo moves for reconsideration of the court’s order issued on June 30, 2023.  Defendant’s motion is procedurally defective.  First, defendant submitted no proof of service of the motion on plaintiff Pedro A. Coton.  Plaintiff is entitled to notice of this motion and an opportunity to be heard.  Second, reconsideration applies to “interim orders.”  (CCP § 1008(h); accord Betz v. Pankow (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 931, 937.)  Defendant moves the court to reconsider its decision after a bench trial.  That is not an interim order.

The court also rejects this motion on the merits.  A motion for reconsideration must be “based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law.”  (CCP § 1008(a).)  The moving party “shall state by affidavit… what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.”  (Ibid.)  The moving party must also show diligence and explain why he or she could not have presented the new or different facts or law earlier.  (California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. Virga (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 30, 46; Baldwin v. Home Sav. of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200.)  Defendant presents no new facts, circumstances, or law.  Even if he had, he has not shown why he could not have presented them before or at the bench trial.

Defendant Esai Raymundo’s motion for reconsideration is denied.