Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 20STCV22590, Date: 2023-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV22590    Hearing Date: April 3, 2023    Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Scott vs. County of Los Angeles, et. al., Case No. 20STCV22590

Tentative Ruling re:  Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

Plaintiff Barbara Scott (Plaintiff) moves for reconsideration of the Court’s February 14, 2023 Order granting summary judgment for Defendant County of Los Angeles (Defendant). The motion is denied.

“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).)

            Trial courts have broad discretion in ruling on motions to reconsider a prior order. (Monroy v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 248, 265.) “A party seeking reconsideration also must provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce the evidence at an earlier time.” (Yolo County Dept. of Child Support Services v. Myers (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 42, 50.)

Plaintiff asserted claims against Defendant, her former employer, for race discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination, and whistleblower retaliation. On January 19, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in full, finding that Plaintiff failed to exhaust the requisite administrative remedies for her FEHA claims. The Court also found that Plaintiff’s claim for whistleblower retaliation under the California Whistleblower Protection Act (CWPA) failed because Plaintiff was not an “employee” of a “state agency” within the meaning of the statute. The Court entered judgment in favor of Defendant on February 14, 2023.

Plaintiff argues that the Court’s Order was in error, but fails to show any “new or different facts, circumstances, or law” warranting reconsideration. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008, subd. (a).) Plaintiff has only presented the same arguments and evidence that she did in opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which the Court previously considered and rejected. Absent any new facts or law, there is no basis to reconsider the prior Order.