Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV26092, Date: 2023-02-02 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org.  Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line.  In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.     If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
                          
            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.   
 
            If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.  

Case Number: 20STCV26092    Hearing Date: February 2, 2023    Dept: 28

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On July 10, 2020, Plaintiffs Delilah Merfalen Gutierrez (“Delilah”), Delilah Anissah Gutierrez (“Delilah”), Daniel Francisco Gutierrez (“Daniel”) and Serena Bella Gutierrez (“Serena”) filed this action against Defendants Glen Earl Whitley (“Whitley”), Praxair Distribution Incorporated (“Praxair”) and Heriberto Hernandez (“Hernandez”) for wrongful death. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendants Highline Transportation, Inc. (“HT”), Highline Transportation Solutions, Inc. (“HTS”), High Line Transport Solutions, Inc. (“HL Transport”) and High Line Transportation Solutions, Inc. (“HL Transportation”).

On March 24, 2021, Whitley and Praxair filed an answer. On October 27, 2021, Whitley and Praxair were dismissed, with prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request. On October 3, 2022, the Court dismissed HT, without prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.

On November 28, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration to be heard on February 2, 2023.

There is no currently scheduled trial date.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiffs request the Court reconsider its November 17, 2022, order denying leave to Serve Defendant HL Transport via the Secretary of State.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP §1008 (a) states: “[w]hen 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.”

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has not submitted any new facts upon which to make this motion.  Instead, Plaintiff argues that the Court was simply wrong.  This is not a basis for the Court to reconsider its prior ruling.  Moreover, the Court notes that a motion for reconsideration is not necessary. Plaintiffs request was not denied with prejudice—All Plaintiffs need do is submit a new application making the requisite showing.  The Court denies the motion.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.