Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 20STCV47990, Date: 2023-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV47990    Hearing Date: January 10, 2023    Dept: 68

Background

            On December 15, 2020, Plaintiff Sascha Lynch (Plaintiff) filed a complaint alleging one cause of action for motor vehicle negligence.  Plaintiff alleges that on January 2, 2019, Defendant Gerson Jacton Moreno (Defendant), hit her motor vehicle with his motor vehicle on the northbound 110 Freeway in Los Angeles.  Plaintiff claims that she sustained injuries and damages as a result of Defendant hitting her car.

            This is a motion for reconsideration.  It is governed by Code of Civil Procedure § 1008.

            On October 21, 2022, this Court heard a motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff.  Insofar as relevant to this motion, a motion for summary judgment must dispose of the entire cause of action, not merely adjudicate facts.  Code of Civil Procedure § 437c.  Plaintiff must show that as to each and every element that Plaintiff must prove, there are no triable issues of fact that require a trial.  The Court denied that motion because there were disputed evidentiary issues, and Plaintiff did not show that there were no issues of triable material fact.  Shortly after that, on October 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed the motion for reconsideration of the denial of summary judgment that is now before the Court.  As Defendant points out in his opposition (Opposition at pp. 2-3), filed on December 27, 2022, Plaintiff has not alleged any new or different facts, laws, or circumstances in her motion for reconsideration.

In her motion, Plaintiff quoted from the Court’s October 21, 2022, Order denying the motion.

“Plaintiff Motion does not show that there are no triable issues of fact. Indeed, as shown by Plaintiff’s Amended Separate Statement, much of what is claimed to be “undisputed” are simply facts relating to the procedural history of this litigation.  For instance, the first few “undisputed facts” relate to the filing of the complaint and its allegations.  Many of the “undisputed facts” relate to the service of discovery by Plaintiff and the delivery of emails and attachments.  Even included are facts relating to the service of the summons.  The fact that Defendant served unverified responses to discovery is claimed to not be in dispute.  Many of the exhibits are not properly authenticated and are hearsay.  The failings of the motion are too numerous to justify any extended discussion.  Plaintiff has failed to establish that each element of the claim are supported by admissible evidence and are undisputed.  This case cannot be summarily adjudicated.”

Legal Standard and Analysis

Code of Civil Procedure § 1008(a) requires a showing of new or different facts, law or circumstances and a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce that evidence at an earlier time before a court can reconsider its prior order.  (Pazderka vs. Caballeros Dimas Alang, Inc. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 658, 670.)  Further, the party must demonstrate “what new or different facts are claimed to be shown.”  (C.C.P. § 1008(a).)  When a motion for reconsideration does not meet the prerequisites for relief under section 1008, the court has no jurisdiction to reconsider the underlying order.  (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1499-1500.)

There is no showing by Plaintiff of any new or different facts, laws, or circumstances from the time of the hearing on October 21, 2022, that would justify reconsideration of the Court’s October 21 order.  Therefore, the Court will not reconsider its denial of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.