Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 22STCV06102, Date: 2024-01-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV06102 Hearing Date: January 4, 2024 Dept: 76
Pursuant to California Rule of Court
3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed
herein. Counsel must contact the staff
in Department 76 to inform the Court whether they wish to submit on the
tentative, or to argue the matter. As
required by Rule 3.1308(a), 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.
Per Rule of Court 3.1308, if notice of intention to appear is not given, the Court may adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant attorneys committed legal malpractice and abandoned Plaintiff as a client in the underlying Case.
Plaintiff Cuijuan Liu, in pro per moves for reconsideration of the Court’s March 23, 2023 ruling on Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories.
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff Cuijuan Liu, in pro per’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s March 23, 2023 ruling on Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories is DENIED.
ANALYSIS
Motion For Reconsideration
Plaintiff Cuijuan Liu, in pro per moves for reconsideration of the Court’s March 23, 2023 ruling on Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories.
In the March 23, 2023 minute order regarding the ruling on submitted matter, the Court issued the following order:
This motion is deemed to be brought on
behalf of Defendant Dixon Yick-Sun Wong only. It appears the Law Office of
Dixon Wong and Associates, A Professional Law Corporation, is suspended and
thus cannot propound discovery upon Plaintiff.
Defendant Dixon Yick-Sun Wong's motion
to compel further responses to special interrogatories is GRANTED as to special
interrogatories No. 3, 4, 7, 9, 10.
Defendant Dixon Yick-Sun Wong's request
for sanctions against Plaintiff Cuijuan Liu is GRANTED in the reduced amount of
$1,327 for 2.5 hours at $500/hour, plus $77 in filing fees. (Song Decl., ¶ 9.)
Further responses are due within 20 days. Plaintiff is to pay sanctions to Defendant's counsel within 20 days
Plaintiff’s motion is based on the following arguments:
The ruling on the
Minute Order of March 23 2023, is not fair because it states that Defendants' motion
to Compel was deemed to be brought on behalf of Dixon Yick—Sun Wong Only. The
defendants illegally brought a Motion to Compel on behalf of a corporation in
suspended status, namely Law Offices of Dixon Wong & Associates. Plaintiff
Cuijuan Liu was the prevailing party as a matter of right as to Plaintiff's
opposition to Dixon Wong & Associates, A Professional Corporation. Therefore,
any Attorney Fees awarded to Defendant Dixon Wong, an individual would be
SET-OFF or deducted from Defendants' loss as to the Suspended Corporation.
Next, Defendants Dixon Wong, and Law
Offices of Dixon Wong & Associates, A Professional Corporation are now
precluded from any enforcement on the ruling of March 23 2023 because
defendants failed to submit a Proposed Order on the ruling of March 23, 2023, within
the 5-day deadline, per California Rules of Court, CRC, Rule 3.1312.It has been
10 days since the clerk served the Minute Order of March 23, 2023. Yet,
defendants still have not served and submitted a Proposed Order to the Court concerning
the March 23, 2023 Minute Order and Ruling as to the March 15, 2023 hearing on
Defendants' motion to Compel. [A Clear violation of CRC, Rule 3.1312]
Next, Plaintiff Cuijuan Liu is
unemployed, and has limited resources to pay attorney fees to defendants. In
fact, on February 18, 2022, this court Issued an Order on Court Fee Waiver as
to Plaintiff Cuijuan Liu.
Therefore, the court should consider the .Plaintiff's inability to pay the attorney fees which were awarded to Defendant Dixon Wong.
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(a).)
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.)).
Moreover, a motion for reconsideration cannot be granted to correct an error of law:
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.)
Here, Plaintiff does not demonstrate new or different facts, law or circumstances which justify reconsideration of the Court’s order. Plaintiff either complains that the Court made an error of law in not considering Plaintiff the prevailing party as to the suspended corporation Law Offices of Dixon Wong & Associates. Further, the failure to serve an order is not a fact or circumstance which the Courts should have considered in ruling on the merits of the motion. Nor is Plaintiff’s inability to pay sanctions a reason to deny sanctions, as it was not raised in connection with the original hearing and, in any event, goes to whether such sanctions order is collectible against Plaintiff, which is an enforceability issue.
For purposes of enforcement of judgment: “ ‘Judgment’ means a judgment, order, or decree entered in a court of this state.” (Civ. Proc. Code, § 680.230 [bold emphasis added].) Enforcement is by way of a writ of execution. (Civ. Proc. Code, § 699.510.)
Weil and Brown observe that many
attorneys seem to be unaware that monetary sanction orders are enforceable
through the execution of judgment laws. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide:
Civil Procedure Before Trial 3 (The Rutter Group 1994) PP 9:344.21, 9:344.22,
p. 9(1)-92.) These orders have the force and effect of a money judgment, and
are immediately enforceable through execution, except to the extent the trial
court may order a stay of the sanction. (See § 680.230,680.270, 699.510, subd.
(a); Jones v. Otero, supra, 156 Cal. App. 3d at p. 759.) Unawareness of this
remedy may explain why terminating sanctions are often sought when monetary
sanctions are unpaid.
(Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)
As such, there is no basis for this Court to reconsider its ruling, and the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.