Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

Birgitta Sjostrand was allegedly the target of a theft and money laundering scheme run by Defendants.  She has since died in 2022.  Plaintiff Myrna Ramos is the administrator of the estate of Sjostrand.   

This hearing is on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.  Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s order imposing sanctions following her failure to file a response to the Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) re: Sanctions on Plaintiff for Failure to File a Case Management Statement.  The Court also dismissed the case without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to file a response to the OSC re: Sanction on Plaintiff for Failure to File Proof of Service as to the Four Unserved Defendants.    

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. 

As stated by the court in¿Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1499, 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.” There is a strict requirement of diligence, meaning the moving party must present a satisfactory explanation for failing to provide the evidence or different facts earlier. (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690.) 

 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff’s motion was not filed in compliance with Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b).  Plaintiff's motion is noticed for March 5, 2025. All noticed motions, unless otherwise provided by statute, must be served and filed at least 16 court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b).) Two court days must be added for electronic service.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6(a)(3).) Here, counting backwards from March 5, 2025, 16 court days, plus two more court days for e-service, means that Plaintiff's motion should have been served on February 5, 2025.  Instead, it was served on February 11, 2025.  

Plaintiff’s motion also fails because it does not have a compliant affidavit.  Pursuant to section 1008, “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(a).) Section 1008 “specifies the court’s jurisdiction” with respect to such motions for reconsideration, and “[n]o application to reconsider any order or for the renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to this section.”  (Id. at § 1008(e).)  

A motion filed without the requisite affidavit is invalid.  (Branner v. Regents of University of California (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1048 (“[The party’s] motion was invalid when filed because it failed to comply with the statutory procedural requirement that the motion contain the requisite affidavit.”); see also Even Zohar, 61 Cal.4th at 833 (“A party filing a renewed application must, among other things, submit an affidavit showing what ‘new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed[.]”’). Here, the affidavit submitted by Plaintiff fails to include the following required information: 1) state what application was made before; 2) when and to what judge; 3) what order or decisions were made; or 4) what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. Absent a proper affidavit, the Court does not have the jurisdiction to grant Plaintiff's motion. Therefore, the motion must be denied.  

Additionally, Plaintiff’s motion fails because there is no underlying application for an order from this Court for it to reconsider. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 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 … make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order.”  (Civ. Proc. § 1008(a) (emphasis added).)  The California Supreme Court has stated that, “Section 1008 by its terms ‘applies to all applications ... for the renewal of a previous motion’ and ‘specifies the court's jurisdiction with regard to [such] applications.’”  (Even Zohar, 61 Cal. 4th at 833 (internal citations omitted).) Here, Plaintiff never filed a motion or application for an order to this Court that was subsequently denied. The Court’s ruling resulted from two Orders to Show Cause hearings, not an application by Plaintiff.  As such, section 1008(a) is inapplicable.  

CONCLUSION 

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

 

DATED: March 5, 2025 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court