Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 20STCV26736, Date: 2024-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV26736    Hearing Date: April 3, 2024    Dept: 76

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.

            Defendant Dazhi Chen moves for reconsideration of the Court’s ruling on the trial.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Dazhi Chen’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code, § 128.7 in the amount of $1,500 is DENIED—Plaintiff prevailed at trial, and the interests of justice are not served by further punitive measures against Defendant.

ANALYSIS

Motion For Reconsideration

Discussion          

Defendant Dazhi Chen moves for reconsideration of the Court’s July 13, 2023 Order re: the trial. The Court found in favor of Plaintiff.

            First, Plaintiff does not demonstrate new or different facts, law or circumstances to justify reconsideration of the July 13, 2023 ruling, as required by Civ. Proc. Code § 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).)

            Defendant basically argues that he cannot afford to pay the judgment and that the trial was not fair because he could not afford to hire an attorney. Defendant continues to argue the merits of the case but did not move for a new trial. Defendant also disputes the truth of the matters deemed admitted, but did not successfully move to have the order deeming those matters set aside.

More fundamentally, 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 motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code, § 128.7 in the amount of $1,500 is DENIED—Plaintiff prevailed at trial, and the interests of justice are not served by further punitive measures against Defendant.