Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 20STCV26736, Date: 2023-02-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV26736    Hearing Date: February 15, 2023    Dept: 76

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein.  As required by Rule 3.1308(a)(2), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and argue.  Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776.  If notice of intention to appear is not given and the parties do not appear, the Court will adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant landlord entered Plaintiff’s apartment for an inspection of water leakage and mold, and called an officer he knew to facilitate an unauthorized inspection of the upstairs of the apartment by Defendant. The officer assaulted and battered Plaintiff, throwing him to the ground, and conducted an unlawful search of the upstairs bedrooms. 

            Plaintiff Shinlin Jiang moves for reconsideration of the Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and for an order granting Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

TENTATIVE RULING 

            Plaintiff Shinlin Jian’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and for an order granting Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. 

            Defendant’s request for affirmative relief in the form of damages is DENIED.

ANALYSIS 

Motion For Reconsideration 

Discussion           

            Plaintiff Shinlin Jiang moves for reconsideration of the Court’s August 4, 2022 denial of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and for an order granting Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

            First, Plaintiff does not demonstrate new or different facts, law or circumstances to justify reconsideration of the August 4, 2022 ruling, as required by CCP § 1008(a), which provides:

(a) 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.

     (Civ. Proc. Code, § 1008(a).)

            Plaintiff basically argues that the Court made an error of law in denying the motion for summary judgment. However, a motion for reconsideration cannot be used to correct judicial error. (Crotty v. Trader (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 765, 770-71; Global Protein Products, Inc. v. Le (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 352, 364.) Plaintiff’s relief, if any, lies with the appellate court.

            Defendant’s request for affirmative relief in the form of damages is DENIED. Affirmative relief cannot be awarded by way of an opposition to a motion for reconsideration.