Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Jack Dwosh 

 

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Jane Doe 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

This case arises from a domestic dispute that has a long litigation history.  Former defendant David Danon (now dismissed) and Plaintiff Jane Doe were in a relationship, and Danon is alleged to have violently attacked Plaintiff “dozens of times.”  (Compl. ¶8.)    Plaintiff alleges that in July 2018, Danon and his attorney, Defendant Jack Dwosh (“Defendant”), “began a years-long campaign of filing cases against Plaintiff.”  (Compl. ¶6.)  The first case was a request for a restraining order which was dismissed after a two-day hearing.  In that case, the judge concluded that Danon failed to meet the minimum burden of proof, had no evidence, and Danon’s testimony contradicted his pleadings.  (Compl. ¶7.)   

Plaintiff then filed a restraining order against Danon which was granted and subsequently renewed.  (Compl. ¶¶11-12.)  In July 2020, Danon and Defendant filed a second request for a restraining order based on the same allegations as the first request.  (Compl. ¶13.)  Danon and Defendant lost on their second request.  (Ibid.)  This second request is the basis for Plaintiff’s Complaint for malicious prosecution in this case.  (Ibid.)   

On February 22, 2023, this Court granted a special motion to strike Plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim.  Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the Order on the grounds that then-Supervising Judge Cowan authorized her to file her complaint and therefore the claim had at least minimal merit, defeating a special motion to strike.  (Such authorization was necessary for her to be able to file her complaint since she has been designated as a vexatious litigant.) She also claims reconsideration should be granted because this Court is biased against her.   

LEGAL STANDARD 

“When 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a).) 

In addition, a party must provide a satisfactory explanation for failing to offer the new or different facts in the first place.  (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 213.)  The “satisfactory explanation” requirement has been satisfied where parties were previously prevented from presenting the “new or different facts” due to no fault of their own.  (See In re Marriage of Okum (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 176, 184 (party was prohibited by the court from soliciting corroborating testimony when ruling on the original order); see also Glade v. Glade (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1457 (party was prohibited from addressing the court after arriving to the hearing five minutes late due to construction concealing the court).) 

DISCUSSION  

Plaintiff argues that the Court should not have granted a special motion to strike her malicious prosecution claim because the claim had merit as evidenced by the fact Judge Cowan allowed her to file her complaint.  This same argument was made and rejected earlier.  It does not present new facts, law or circumstances that would warrant a reconsideration of the Court’s Order.  As the Court ruled, Judge Cowan did not consider the arguments raised in the special motion to strike, and accordingly his order allowing Plaintiff to file the complaint does not preclude the granting of such a motion.  “Opinions are not authority for issues they do not consider.” (Palmer v. Ted Stevens Honda, Inc. (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 530, 539.)    

Plaintiff also argues that reconsideration should be granted because the Court is biased.  As support, she cites to the fact that this Court (1) presided over a mandatory settlement conference and (2) precluded Plaintiff from speaking during the hearing on the special motion to strike.  It is unclear how the Court’s participation in a mandatory settlement conference shows bias.  As to the hearing on the special motion to strike, the Court only limited Plaintiff’s participation when Plaintiff became disruptive and disrespectful and refused to address the issues pending before the Court in the hearing.  The Court has discretion to control the proceedings before it.  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s unsupported claims of bias do not support granting a motion for reconsideration.      

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. 

 

DATED: March 17, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court