Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This case arises from an alleged assault.  Plaintiff Dennis Stankie was visiting Defendant Santa Monica Bay Woman’s Club (the “Club”) when he claims an administrator of the Club assaulted him.  The unnamed administrator yelled at Plaintiff to “get out” and then pushed him.   

Plaintiff is appearing in pro per and filed a form complaint with four causes of action for (1) general negligence, (2) intentional tort, (3) premises liability, and (4) elder abuse.  Plaintiff then amended the Complaint to substitute Does 1 and 2 with Defendants Becky Upchurch and Peter Abbay.   

On August 5, 2024, Plaintiff moved for leave to further amend his Complaint to add causes of action for battery, assault, negligent hiring and intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”).  The Court denied the motion because Plaintiff failed to provide the required declaration pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivision (b). 

Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying his motion for leave to amend, submitting the required declaration in support of his motion.   

 

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 

 

Plaintiff requests judicial notice of various documents, which are not attached to the request.  The bulk of the documents are filings in this action, for which request for judicial notice is unnecessary.  Plaintiff may simply call the Court’s attention to the records.  The sole document that is not a filing in this case is an “Attorney’s letter on 7-5-24.”  The letter is not attached to the request, and the Court cannot properly consider it.  Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice.   

IMPROPER REPLY  

Stankie’s reply¿in support of his motion is single spaced and if double spaced would exceed the 10 page limit for replies.  Stankie violates Rules of Court, Rules 3.1113(d)¿(“No¿reply¿or closing memorandum may exceed 10 pages”) and¿2.108¿(“The lines on each page must be one and one-half spaced or double-spaced” and only “footnotes, quotations, and printed forms of corporate surety bonds and undertakings may be single-spaced”).) These are material defects, and thus the Court declines to consider the reply. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Pursuant to¿Code Civ. Proc. §1008(a):¿ 

“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 of Civ. Proc., §1008(a).)¿ 

 

A court acts in excess of jurisdiction when it grants a motion to reconsider that is not based upon “new or different facts, circumstances or law.”¿ (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal. App. 4th 1494, 1499.)  There is a strict requirement of diligence, meaning the moving party must present a satisfactory explanation for failing to provide the evidence, different facts, or law earlier.¿ (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 674, 690.)¿ A motion for reconsideration is properly denied when it is based on evidence that could have been presented in connection with the original motion.¿ (Morris v. AGFA Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1460;¿Hennigan v. White (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 395, 406.) ¿¿¿ 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff does not offer a satisfactory explanation for failing to provide his declaration earlier.  A motion for reconsideration is properly denied when it is based on evidence that could have been presented earlier, in support of the original motion.  (Morris, 144 Cal.App.4th at 1460.) 

In any event, the declaration still fails to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivision (b).  The declaration focuses on the amendments to add a negligent hiring and IIED claim, but does not address the proposed addition of claims for assault and battery.  The declaration also does not explain why the amendments are necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.  Accordingly, the Court denies the motion for reconsideration.   

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: September 18, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court