Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 22STCV28224, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28224    Hearing Date: March 2, 2023    Dept: 72

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Date:               3/2/23 (8:30 AM)

Case:               Seung Il Lee v. Huy Quang Hoang et al. (22STCV28224)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Seung Il Lee’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

Defendant RealTime Laboratories, Inc.’s evidentiary objections are OVERRULED.

Pursuant to CCP § 1008(a), plaintiff Seung Il Lee moves for reconsideration of the November 29, 2022 order quashing service of summons on defendant RealTime Laboratories, Inc. (“RealTime”).

A party seeking reconsideration of a prior ruling must set forth what “new or different facts, circumstances, or law” justify reconsideration of the prior ruling, as the requirement establishes the Court’s jurisdiction to reconsider a prior ruling under CCP § 1008(a). (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.) A party moving for reconsideration “must provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce the evidence at an earlier time.” (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212.)  

Plaintiff maintains that RealTime’s website indicates that California physicians, including co-defendant Defendant Huy Quang Hoang, M.D., are registered on the RealTime website. (Lee Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5.) Plaintiff also argues that RealTime ships laboratory test kits and panel reports to California physicians. (Lee Decl. ¶¶ 7, 8.)

Plaintiff fails to state why these arguments and documents from RealTime’s website were not presented earlier. (See generally Lee Decl.) Plaintiff attempts to attack the declaration of David Murcott that RealTime submitted in support of the motion to quash service of summons. (Lee Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5, 7.) The time for plaintiff to attack the Murcott declaration was in connection with the plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to quash service of summons. The fact that plaintiff did not effectively argue then-existing facts accessible to plaintiff is not a ground for reconsideration. (Gilberd, 32 Cal.App.4th at 1500.) Accordingly, the Court does not have jurisdiction under CCP § 1008(a) to reconsider the motion to quash service of summons. (See CCP § 1008(e) [“This section specifies the court’s jurisdiction with regard to applications for reconsideration of its orders and renewals of previous motions, and applies to all applications to reconsider any order of a judge or court, or for the renewal of a previous motion, whether the order deciding the previous matter or motion is interim or final”].)

The purpose of CCP § 1008 is “to conserve judicial resources by constraining litigants who would endlessly bring the same motions over and over, or move for reconsideration of every adverse order and then appeal the denial of the motion to reconsider.” (Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 830, 839-40, internal quotations omitted.)

For the foregoing reasons, the Court does not reconsider the November 29, 2022 granting of the motion to quash service of summons.  The motion is DENIED.