Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV30134, Date: 2022-09-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV30134    Hearing Date: September 22, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background Facts

Plaintiff Eliana Silva Delbuck (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Bristol Farms (“Defendant”) for injuries relating to Plaintiff’s alleged slip and fall on Defendant’s property.  The complaint alleges causes of action for premises liability and negligence. 

On August 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed a form motion to transfer this matter as a complicated personal injury case to an Independent Calendar court without a supporting declaration or submitting any other evidence.  Plaintiff provided approximately four sentences in support of the motion, indicating that there have been five motions filed, that there are “numerous issues,” “numerous parties,” a cross-complaint, and unidentified future motions anticipated, and that Plaintiff turns 70 in September, requiring preferential treatment.  The motion was denied without prejudice as insufficient evidence and information warranting transfer were provided.  (Min. Order, Aug. 19, 2022.) 

Although the motion was denied without prejudice to the filing of a new motion, Plaintiff has chosen to move for reconsideration of the ordering denying Plaintiff’s motion to transfer this matter.  On September 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion. 

2. Motion for Reconsideration

As Plaintiff seeks reconsideration, CCP §1008 applies.  It requires the Court to reconsider a prior ruling if it finds there are new or different facts, circumstances, or law than those before the Court at the time of the original ruling.  Once the Court determines the existence of new or different facts, circumstances, of law, it can either modify or affirm its prior decision.  (Corns v. Miller (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 195, 202.)

The legislative intent was to restrict motions for reconsideration to circumstances where a party offers the court some fact or circumstance not previously considered, and some valid reason for not offering it earlier.  (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.)  “[A] court acts in excess of jurisdiction when it grants a motion to reconsider that is not based upon ‘new or different facts, circumstances, or law.’”  (Id.)  The burden under § 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.”  (New York Times Co. v. Sup.Ct. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212-213.)  A party seeking reconsideration of a prior order based on “new or different facts, circumstances or law” must provide a satisfactory explanation for failing to present the information at the first hearing; i.e., a showing of reasonable diligence.  (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690.)  A motion for reconsideration is properly denied where based on evidence that could have been presented in connection with the original motion.  (Morris v. AGFA Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1460.)

Reconsideration cannot be granted based on claims the court misinterpreted the law in its initial ruling, as opposed to a change in the law in the interim; that is not a “new” or “different” matter.  (Gilberd v. AC Transit, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at 1500.)

In this case, Plaintiff asserts that her motion is based on new and different circumstances.  Namely, Plaintiff provides that Defendant failed to produce its expert for deposition at Plaintiff’s counsel’s office on August 22, 2022, which Defendant promised it would do.  Plaintiff avers that as a result, Plaintiff will move to compel the deposition.  Further, Plaintiff contends that after the motion to transfer was denied, Plaintiff learned that defendant has reserved dates to file a motion for summary judgment and a motion for summary adjudication.  Additionally, Plaintiff attests that based on current meet and confer efforts between the parties, Plaintiff anticipates filing additional motions in this matter, including a motion for trial preference and motion for summary adjudication.  Plaintiff further argues that this matter involves multiple parties (three), numerous causes of action (two), a cross-complaint, and a significant number of discovery disputes.  Plaintiff requests the Court reconsider its prior order and transfer this case to an Independent Calendar court.

While Defendant’s failure to produce its expert for deposition and Plaintiff’s motion to compel may be new, a motion to compel does not warrant a different outcome.  With regard to the other “new facts,” Plaintiff referenced the active motion practice, multiple parties, and other issues in this case in the initial motion.  Plaintiff does not explain why it could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced evidence of these in the initial motion.  A motion for reconsideration should be denied where based on evidence that could have been presented in connection with the original motion.  (Morris, 144 Cal.App.4th at 1460.)  Further, it is not unusual for motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication to be made in slip and fall cases, and thus, they do not make the case unusually complicated.   

As the Court noted in the order denying the motion for transfer, the crux of the case concerns a slip and fall at Defendant’s property, which is normally assigned to a Personal Injury Court.  While the matters articulated above by Plaintiff are factors relevant to this Court’s consideration in whether a case should be transferred to an Independent Calendar court as complicated, none of the factors are determinative or mandate transfer at this time.  Indeed, the issues raised by Plaintiff have not yet occurred or are not unusual for a personal injury case.   

This does not mean that the Court will stop assessing whether a transfer is appropriate.  As the Court’s Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Court’s states, “The PI Courts may transfer a case sua sponte based upon a determination that the case is either not a PI case or that it requires more case management than the PI Hub Courts can provide, given their case inventories.”  (Standing Order Re: PI Court Procedures.)  At this time, although there are numerous motions Plaintiff anticipates will be heard before trial, the Court does not find that transfer is warranted.  Moreover, while Plaintiff attests that she will file a motion for trial preference, to date, no such motion has been filed.

            Therefore, the Court reaffirms its order denying Plaintiff’s motion to transfer this case to an Independent Calendar court at this time.  The Court will determine sua sponte whether the action should be transferred to an Independent Calendar court if and/or when the Court deems the matter complicated.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 21^st day of September 2022