Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 21STCV24975, Date: 2023-06-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV24975    Hearing Date: April 15, 2024    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO VACATE AND RECONSIDER THE COURT’S MARCH 1, 2024 AND MARCH 4, 2024 ORDERS GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS OF PLAINTIFFS is DENIED.

 

Background[1]

 

This is a personal injury case. Plaintiffs DAVID FLORES, an individual and LINDA LEON, an individual, (collectively, “Plaintiffs” and/or “Plaintiff”) allege the following against Defendants BURNER CONSTRUCTION CORP. (“Burner Construction”), BENJAMIN THOMAS CALHOUN (“Calhoun”), an individual, JON WILLIAM HOSEA, an individual, and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Inclusive, (collectively, “Defendants” and/or “Defendant”): Defendants were recklessly driving and caused a collision with Plaintiffs’ vehicle. Defendants were “high-beaming” and overtaking one another when they lost control of their vehicles and caused the crash.

 

On July 7, 2021, Plaintiffs filed suit.

 

On September 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed its second amend complaint (SAC) for:

 

1.     Negligence

2.     Negligence Per Se and

3.     Statutory Liability

 

On January 30, 2024, Defendants Calhoun and Burner filed a Motion for Leave to Conduct Psychological Evaluations of Plaintiffs.

 

On March 1, 2024, after taking the matter under submission, the court granted and denied in part the motion: GRANTED IN PART (i.e., as to the IME Itself) and DENIED IN PART (i.e., as to Raw Data and AudioRecording). (See also 3/4/24 Nunc Pro Tunc Order.)

 

On March 19, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion.

 

On April 2, 2024, Defendants filed their opposition and Defendant Hosea filed a notice of joinder.

 

To date, as of 4/11, no reply has been filed (due 5 court days before hearing (Monday, 4/8).)

 

Legal Standard

 

A formal notice of ruling is required to set the time limit running to file a motion for reconsideration. The 10-day time limit runs from service of notice of entry of the order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a).)

 

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008: 

 

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) (emphasis added)

 

Discussion

 

The court’s ruling will be brief as there are  NO new or different facts, circumstances, or law presented.[2]

 

As with before (see 6/22/23 ruling), Plaintiffs seek to use a motion for reconsideration to address the merits of a motion. In this motion, Plaintiffs argue that the court has “summarily and arbitrarily” (Motion p. 1 of 38 of PDF) made its ruling. It is unclear how and why Plaintiffs’ Counsel argues that he had no “notice” of the court’s intent to rule in such a way (Motion p. 3 of 38 of PDF) when the parties attended an IDC, the issues were briefed, a thorough six-page tentative ruling was issued, and the parties extensively argued the matter during the hearing.  

 

 

Conclusion

 

Based on the foregoing, as Plaintiff is attempting to reargue the merits of the motion, something which should been done in opposition to the motion to quash,[3] this motion is denied.


[1] The procedural history of the case has been shortened.

 

[2] Court also directs Plaintiffs to its 6/22/23 ruling on Plaintiffs’ previous motion for reconsideration.

 

[3] And as noted in footnote 7 of the court’s tentative ruling, the opposition was unclear as to what issue Plaintiffs had with the scope of the examination because the opposition was largely dedicated to the issue of the raw data, which was the predominant focus during the hearing. (See 2/22/24 Tentative Ruling, fn. 7 [“The opposition merely mentions that “There is no basis for Defendant to demand that Plaintiffs submit to an “independent medical evaluation” without any limitations” (Opp. p. 5:10-11) without provided an explanation as to what limitations should be imposed.”].)