Judge: Colin Leis, Case: BC714514, Date: 2024-11-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC714514    Hearing Date: November 12, 2024    Dept: 74

Lawson v. Los Angeles Unified School District et al.

Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District’s Motion for Clarification

BACKGROUND 

             This motion arises out of an employment dispute between plaintiff Tabitha Lawson (Plaintiff) and the Los Angeles Unified School District (Defendant).

            On September 14, 2023, the parties stipulated to filing cross-motions for summary adjudication under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(t).  On December 6, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication and denied Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication. On February 1, 2024, Defendant filed a writ of mandate which the Court of Appeal denied. On February 9, 2024, Defendant filed a petition for review from the Court of Appeal denial which the Supreme Court denied.

            On November 16, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration labeled as a motion for clarification.

LEGAL STANDARD

            Defendant’s motion for “clarification” is in substance a motion for reconsideration of the court’s ruling. (Lennar Homes of Cal., Inc. v. Stephens (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 673, 681-82.) A court may grant a motion for reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 based on “new or different facts, circumstances, or law.”  A motion for reconsideration must be filed within ten days of service of written notice of entry of the order upon the party.

DISCUSSION

            Defendant filed a motion for clarification requesting that (1) the court clarify which issues and causes of action remain active for purposes of trial and (2) whether Defendant is permitted to present affirmative defenses that were not discussed in the cross-motions for summary adjudication or the court’s ruling on those cross-motions. A motion for reconsideration must be filed within ten days of the order; it has been nine months.  Moreover, a motion for reconsideration must be based on new or different facts, circumstances, or law; Defendant does not allege any new or different facts, circumstances, or law. Finally, Defendant does not cite any authority obligating (or permitting) the court to issue - as Defendant requests - an advisory opinion about issues not discussed in either cross-motion for summary adjudication.

CONCLUSION

            The Court denies Defendant’s Motion for Clarification.

            Defendant shall give notice.