Judge Deborah C. Servino, Case 30-2018-01009408 2022-08-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Deborah C. Servino, Case: 30-2018-01009408, Date: 2022-08-26 Tentative Ruling

The court denies Plaintiff Arthur Gross III’s motion for reconsideration of the May 6, 2022 order granting in part his motion to strike or tax costs by Defendant BLB Enterprises, Inc., aka Patrol One.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 governs motions made by a party for reconsideration of any order, whether that order is "interim or final." (D.R.S. Trading Co., Inc. v. Barnes (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 815, 820-821.) A motion for reconsideration is one that explicitly directs the court's attention to a previous order and seeks to "modify, amend, or revoke" that order. Merely asking the court to grant relief that is inconsistent with a prior order, whether by the same or a different judge, is not a "motion for reconsideration." (Sorenson v. Superior Court (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 409, 421, fn. 13.)

A motion for reconsideration is commonly thought to have two stages. The court must decide whether to grant reconsideration as such; only after answering that question affirmatively would it proceed to actually reexamine the merits of the prior order. (See, e.g., MacDonald v. Superior Court (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 692, 695; In re Volkland (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 674, 682 [court had arguably granted appellant's request to reconsider the matter, although it came to the same result upon reconsideration].)

The motion for reconsideration must be based on new or different facts, circumstances, or law. (Robbins v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 313, 317.) The moving party must provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure to present earlier the new circumstances, evidence, or law. (Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 830, 833.) “The burden under section 1008 is comparable to that of a party seeking a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence: the information must be such that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced it at the trial.” (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212–213.)

If the statutory requirements for a motion for reconsideration are not met, the motion may be denied on those grounds. Only when the requirements are met, the court may change or reaffirm its original order. (Blake v. Ecker (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 728, 739.) The court must exercise due consideration before modifying, amending, or revoking its prior order. (Case v. Lazben Financial Co. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 172, 189.)

Merits

Here, Plaintiff has not met the statutory requirements for the court to reexamine its May 6, 2022 Order. Plaintiff’s main argument is that the motion to strike or tax costs considered by the court was somehow “corrupted”. (Gross Decl., at ¶¶ 1-5.) He avers in relevant part as follows:

2. I was surprised to learn at the time of Defendants Opposition that his Motion pleading was corrupted and illegible

3. Defendants Opposition was already filed therefore I was restricted from filing a Notice of Errata.

…

5. The download that I received was different than the one in my one legal account which was still perfectly intact. I have no understanding how this happened.

(Gross Decl., at ¶¶ 2, 3, 5.) He knew approximately nine court days before the May 6, 2022 hearing that the document he filed was “corrupted” and yet he took no action to refile anything or even to file a reply. (See Gross Decl., at ¶ 2.) These are not new or different facts, circumstances, or law.

Plaintiff also argues that “approximately 3 weeks” before filing the motion for reconsideration on May 18, 2022, he was approached by “the board” of the HOA and learned that the HOA was paying Patrol One’s attorneys’ fees pursuant to contract. (Gross Decl., at ¶ 9.) Although inadmissible hearsay, this too is not new or different facts, circumstances, or law as he made this argument at the hearing on the motion to strike or tax costs. (See Oberle Decl., at ¶ 8.) Plaintiff has not met his burden to show one of the available grounds for reconsideration.

Furthermore, although the initial motion to strike or tax costs exceeded the page limitations and had the deficiencies noted in the May 6, 2022 ruling, the court read and considered the entire motion and ultimately taxed some costs. (See 5/6/2022 Minute Order.) Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is denied.

Defendant BLB Enterprises, Inc., aka Patrol One, shall give notice of the ruling.