Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: Sundby v. Fidelity National Title Company, Date: 2022-09-28 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING:

Motion to Lift Stay

Plaintiff Dale Sundby moves to lift the stay ordered by the Court in this matter and to set an OSC re Sanctions against counsel for Defendants Jeffrey Myers and Kathleen Myers.  For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED. 

Plaintiff seeks to lift the stay ordered in this case on May 11, 2022, when the Court granted Defendants’ motion to stay or dismiss this action.  Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is effectively a motion for reconsideration of that ruling. 

A motion for reconsideration must be filed within 10 days of service on him of notice of entry of the order in question. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a).)  The 10-day deadline for seeking reconsideration is extended under Code Civ. Proc. § 1013 for service by mail, fax, electronic service or overnight delivery, which applies “in the absence of a specific exception provided for by this section or other statute or rule of court.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1013(a),(c),(e).)

A motion for reconsideration made by a party must be based on new or different facts, circumstances, or law than those before the court at the time of the original ruling. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a).) The motion must also be accompanied by an affidavit from the moving party that states: (1) what application was previously made; (2) when and to what judge; (3) what order was made; and (4) what new or different facts, circumstances or law are claimed to be shown. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a).) A party seeking reconsideration also 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, 213.)

Insofar as this motion is a motion for reconsideration, the motion is untimely.  Notice of the Court’s ruling on the motion to stay this matter was served by email on May 12, 2022.  (ROA 144.)  This motion was filed on July 1, 2022, and is thus untimely.  Further, Plaintiff’s motion did not provide the required affidavit.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a) (“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.”).)  Further, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is not based on any new or different facts, circumstances, or law than those before the court at the time of the original ruling. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a).)  Because Plaintiff does not provide a sufficient basis to grant reconsideration, the motion is denied.  Insofar as Plaintiff seeks a lift of the stay that is not reconsideration of the Court’s May 11, 2022, ruling, the motion is denied.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions or an order to show cause re sanctions is denied without prejudice.

Defendants to give notice.