Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 20STLC06823, Date: 2024-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STLC06823    Hearing Date: January 10, 2024    Dept: 76

            Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to deliver a Permanent Dental Appliance—the temporary version of which had kept breaking and requiring repair—after Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy, and have refused to refund payments Plaintiff has made.

The Court granted Defendants The Regents of the University of California, Eric Sung, D.D.S. and Kumar Shah, B.D.S., F.A.C.P.’s motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Court’s order granting summary judgment.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Michael Goland’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

Motion For Reconsideration

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Court’s March 22, 2023 order granting summary judgment. Notice of the ruling was served on March 30, 2023, so this motion was timely filed and served.

Civ. Proc. Code, § 1008(a) 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.)

            As the Court previously noted, Plaintiff argued that he was required to be personally served with the motion for summary judgment. There is no basis for this contention in Civ. Proc. Code, § 437c, and Plaintiff’s argument is meritless. The motion for summary judgment was served by overnight delivery, on 77 days’ notice, which was sufficient.

            The Court notes that when Plaintiff filed his ex parte application for an order to stay proceedings on March 1, 2023, he was aware of the motion for summary judgment. The Court denied that ex parte application.

Section 1008, subdivision (a) requires that a motion for reconsideration be based on new or different facts, circumstances, or law. A party seeking reconsideration also must provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce the evidence at an earlier time. (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 689 [68 Cal. Rptr. 2d 228].)

(New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212.)

In connection with a motion for reconsideration, there must be “a satisfactory explanation for failing to provide the evidence earlier, which can only be described as a strict requirement of diligence.” (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690; see also Pazderka v. Caballeros Dimas Alang, Inc. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 658 (“With regard to new facts, ‘ “ ‘the party seeking reconsideration must provide not only new evidence but also a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce that evidence at an earlier time.’ ” ’ (Citations omitted.)). 

The court properly denied Fettig's motion for reconsideration. Such a motion requires new facts, circumstances, or law that, despite reasonable diligence, could not have accompanied the original motion. (Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 830, 839 [189 Cal. Rptr. 3d 824, 352 P.3d 391].) Fettig did not show diligence. She offered a raft of factual material, none of which was recent. Fettig's tardy presentation abused the reconsideration process.

(Fettig v. Hilton Garden Inns Mgmt. LLC (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 264, 269.)

            Here, Plaintiff does not present any new or different facts law or circumstances which he could not have presented in connection with a timely-filed opposition. Plaintiff offers arguments on the merits, but this was waived by the failure to present a timely opposition, and the Court found that Plaintiff did not comply with Civ. Proc. Code, § 437c(h) to obtain a continuance of the hearing on the motion for summary judgment to obtain evidence of facts essential to justify opposition.

Moreover, a motion for reconsideration cannot be used to correct judicial errors, so Plaintiff’s argument that the Court committed legal error is irrelevant for purposes of this motion:

We agree a motion for reconsideration, unlike a motion for a new trial, cannot correct judicial error. We question the reasoning set forth in Blue Mountain Development Co. to the extent it based its holding on relating a motion for a new trial to a motion for reconsideration. In Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal. App. 4th 1494 [38 Cal. Rptr. 2d 626], our division  [*771]  delineated the limited role of a motion for reconsideration. In Gilberd, supra, at p. 1500, we explained Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 gives the court no authority when deciding whether to grant a motion to reconsider to "reevaluate" or "reanalyze" facts and authority already presented in the earlier motion. Instead, the court may grant reconsideration only if presented with " 'new or different facts, circumstances, or law.' " In contrast, when considering a motion for a new trial, the court does not examine " 'new or different facts,' " but determines whether the court committed error. We, therefore, disagree with Blue Mountain Development Co. when it compared a motion for a new trial to a motion for reconsideration and find California Rules of Court, rule 3 does not apply to a postjudgment motion for reconsideration.

(Crotty v. Trader (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 765, 770-71.)

            As such, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.