Judge Barbara M. Scheper, Case Number: 22STCV15523, Date: 2023-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 22STCV15523, Date: 2023-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15523 Hearing Date: December 15, 2023 Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Lima-Washington vs. Pasadena Unified School District, et. al., Case No. 22STCV15523

Tentative Ruling re: Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

Plaintiff Antoinette Lima-Washington (Plaintiff) moves for reconsideration of the Court’s November 8, 2023 Order denying Plaintiff leave to file the Third Amended Complaint (TAC). The motion is opposed by Defendants Pasadena Unified School District and Michael Bell (collectively, Defendants). 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.)

On November 8, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File the Third Amended Complaint based on Plaintiff’s failure to satisfy Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (b). The Court found that Plaintiff failed to identify which added facts were newly discovered, specify when those facts were discovered, or explain why the amendment was necessary or proper.

Plaintiff’s motion sought to amend the SAC to add two causes of action, for Retaliation under CFRA (Gov. Code § 12945.2) and Negligent Supervision. Plaintiff now moves the Court to reconsider the November 8, 2023 Order (the Order) in part and permit Plaintiff to add only the CFRA claim.

As an initial matter, the motion is not untimely. Plaintiff filed her motion on November 20, 2023. November 18, 2023, fell on a Saturday, and so the deadline to file the motion became the following Monday, November 20. (Code Civ. Proc. § 12a.)

Plaintiff moves to reconsider the Order on the basis that new facts were discovered during the deposition of Giovana Lovada Valdez (Valdez), who was assigned to Plaintiff’s classroom as a substitute teacher during the year of Plaintiff’s CFRA leave. (Cook Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. D.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that the transcript for Valdez’s deposition was received only after the motion for leave to amend was filed. (Cook Decl. ¶ 5.) Valdez testified that she was placed in Plaintiff’s classroom during Plaintiff’s leave, and that Defendant Michael Bell told her that she could expect to remain in the classroom. (Cook Decl., Ex. D [22].) Plaintiff also states that Michael Mendelle, the school’s custodian, recently testified that “[Plaintiff’s] classroom was taken over by another teacher.” (Cook Decl. ¶ 7.)

This evidence does not show any “new or different facts [or] circumstances” warranting reconsideration. It does not appear that the facts described are newly discovered, given that Plaintiff alleged in prior complaints that Bell “had ‘thrown away’ her personal belongings, books and teaching materials” during her leave of absence. (SAC ¶ 34.) The Court also notes that the facts underlying Plaintiff’s proposed CFRA cause of action were pled in previous complaints. (Cook Decl. ISO Motion for Leave to Amend, TAC ¶¶ 44-54, 121-123; compare SAC ¶¶ 34-46.) Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and Complaint each included a cause of action for Retaliation under CFRA, but the claim was omitted from the SAC.

Furthermore, even assuming that this evidence constituted “new facts” under Section 1008, it would not warrant reconsideration of the prior ruling. A “new fact” must “relat[e] to the merits of the underlying motion.” (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.) The purportedly new evidence cited by Plaintiff would not satisfy the requirements to show “when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered” and “the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier” under Rule 3.1324, subd. (b), given that Plaintiff’s proposed CFRA claim was premised on facts already pled in prior complaints.