Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV27050, Date: 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV27050    Hearing Date: January 19, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Motion for Reconsideration

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

BACKGROUND

On July 20, 2020, Plaintiff Bridgette Stoval (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”), City of Los Angeles (“City”) and County of Los Angeles (“County”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence. 

On December 24, 2020, the County filed an answer; the County was later dismissed, without prejudice. On January 29, 2021, the City was dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request. On January 21, 2021, LACMTA filed an answer.

On December 15, 2022, LACMTA filed a Motion for Reconsideration to be heard on January 19, 2023.

Trial is scheduled for May 16, 2023. 

PARTY’S REQUESTS

LACMTA requests the Court reconsider and vacate its December 6 ,2022, Ex Parte Order continuing Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Related Date and Request to Continue Trial and Related Dates.

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

LACMTA filed this motion within 10 days of service of the ruling on the hearing.

LACMTA requests the Court reconsider the motion on the basis that LACMTA’s attorney was unaware of the fact that the Court previously ruled that discovery and motion deadlines remain related to the December 9, 2022, trial date. The Court does not find that this constitutes “new or different facts.” Any arguments regarding the applicable deadlines are not new, as previous Court rulings were accessible and reviewable by LACMTA—LACMTA simply failed to make said arguments. LACMTA’s counsel’s failure to review and prepare for the ex-parte hearing is does not justify a motion for reconsideration. The Court denies the motion.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s 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.