Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV22815, Date: 2024-12-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV22815    Hearing Date: December 18, 2024    Dept: 74

Lopez v. Miranda et al.

Defendant Rafael David Miranda and Trustee’s Motion to Reconsider.

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Richard Lopez (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against defendants Rafael David Miranda, and Does 1-20 for (1) Quiet Title, (2) Slander of Title, and (3) Cancellation of Instrument.

Defendants filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff, Laura Miranda-Diaz, Jose Miranda, Jason Jackson, Francisca Hernandez and Roes 1-50 (collectively Cross-Defendants).  Defendants allege four causes of action: (1) Declaratory Relief; (2) Intentional Interference with Contract; (3) Negligent Interference with Contract and (4) Wrongful Eviction.  Defendants allege that a settlement (Settlement Agreement) was reached with Andres Contreras regarding Miranda’s mortgage on 920 North Eastman Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90063 (the Property) and that the cross-defendants conspired to defraud Defendants. 

            The Court entered judgement for Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s complaint on October 18, 2024. 

LEGAL STANDARD

"A motion for reconsideration may only be brought if the party moving for reconsideration can offer 'new or different facts, circumstances, or law' which it could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the time of the prior motion.... A motion for reconsideration will be denied absent a strong showing of diligence." Forrest v. Dept. Of Corps. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 183, 202, disapproved on other grounds by Shalant v. Girardi (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1164, 1172. See also Baldwin v. Home Sav. of Am. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1199 (noting that 1992 amendment to Code Civ. Proc., § 1008 tightened diligence requirements).

DISCUSSION

            On October 18, 2024, the Court entered judgment for Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s complaint. More than a month later on November 25, 2024, Defendant filed his motion for reconsideration of the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.  Entry of judgment divests a trial court’s authority to decide a motion for reconsideration.  (Safeco Ins. Co. v. Architectural Facades Unlimited, Inc. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1477, 1482.)  Therefore, the Court may not decide Defendant’s motion for reconsideration.

Assuming solely for the sake of argument that the Court does have jurisdiction to consider Defendant’s motion for reconsideration, Defendant requests reconsideration on the grounds that (1) Plaintiff’s separate statement did not comply with the separate statement requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure section 437, and (2) triable issues of material fact existed because of defects in the separate statement.

            Neither of these grounds are “new or different facts, circumstances, or law” because these alleged deficiencies existed upon the filing of the motion for summary judgment.  Defendant contends that case law about the sufficiency of separate statements was newly discovered.  Defendant’s contention misunderstands what constitutes “new law.” “New law” is not law that Defendant newly discovered; “new law” is instead law that did not exist when the Court ruled on Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The supposedly new law that Defendant cites pre-dates Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.  

CONCLUSION

The Court denies the motion for reconsideration.

Defendant to give notice.