Judge: Gail Killefer, Case: 25STCP00021, Date: 2025-06-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 25STCP00021 Hearing Date: June 5, 2025 Dept: 37
HEARING DATE: Thursday, June 5, 2025
CASE NUMBER: 25STCP00021
CASE NAME: California Automobile
Insurance Company v. Amir Monsefi, et al.
MOVING PARTY: Respondents Amir Monsefi &
Melissa Monsefi
OPPOSING PARTY: Petitioner California Automobile
Insurance Company
TRIAL DATE: N/A
PROOF OF SERVICE: OK
PROCEEDING: Motion for
Reconsideration
OPPOSITION: 19 May 2025
REPLY: 28
May 2025
TENTATIVE: Respondents’ motion for reconsideration is
denied.
Background
Petitioner
California Automobile Insurance Company (“CAIC”) issued Respondents Amir
Monsefi & Melissa Monsefi (“Respondents”) a residential insurance policy
for 4173 Regal Oak Drive, Encino, California 91436 (the “Policy”). The Policy
includes an Appraisal provision that allows for an appraisal if the parties to
the policy failed to agree on the amount of the loss.
On
June 24, 2024, Respondents reported that water had backed up from a clogged
drainpipe which caused damage to their residence. When the parties failed to
agree on the amount of the loss, Respondents requested that the amount of the
loss be set by appraisal, as provided for in their insurance policy. This
petition, filed January 2, 2025, arises from the appraisal of Respondents’
loss.
Petitioner
CAIC sought an order to disqualify the Respondents’ appraiser. On April 10,
2025, this court granted CAIC’s petition.
On
April 24, 2025, the Respondents filed this Motion seeking reconsideration of
the April 10, 2025 Order (the “Order”). Petitioner opposes the Motion. The
matter is now before the court.
I. Legal Standard
CCP § 1008 states in relevant part:¿¿¿¿¿¿¿
¿¿¿¿¿¿
(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 an 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.¿¿¿¿¿¿
¿¿¿¿¿
(b) A party
who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or
in part, or granted conditionally or on terms, may make a subsequent
application for the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances, or
law, in which case it shall be shown 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. For a failure
to comply with this subdivision, any order made on a subsequent application may
be revoked or set aside on an ex parte motion.¿¿¿¿¿¿¿
¿¿¿¿¿
(c) If a
court at any time determines that there has been a change of law that warrants
it to reconsider a prior order it entered, it may do so on its own motion and
enter a different order.¿¿
¿¿
(d) A
violation of this section may be punished as a contempt and with sanctions as
allowed by Section 128.7. In addition, an order made contrary to this section
may be revoked by the judge or commissioner who made it, or vacated by a judge
of the court in which the action or proceeding is pending.¿¿
¿¿¿¿¿
(e)¿This
section specifies the court’s jurisdiction with regard to applications for
reconsideration of its orders and renewals of previous motions, and applies to
all applications to reconsider any order of a judge or court, or for the
renewal of a previous motion, whether the order deciding the previous matter or
motion is interim or final. No 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. . . .¿¿
II. Discussion
Respondents
seek reconsideration of the Order disqualifying John Kaldawi as Respondents'
appraiser based on new and different facts. The new and different fact Respondents
present is the declaration of contractor and former public adjuster Jeffrey
Sjobring (“Sjobring”). Sjobring states that he has been a licensed general
contractor in the state of California for 36 years. (Sjobring Decl., ¶ 2.)
Based on his experience, Sjobring opines that a party appraiser may be
disinterested if he represented a policyholder and became the party appraiser.
(Id. ¶ 4.) “For a party-appraiser to be ‘interested’ in a claim, he or
she must have a financial interest in its outcome, or an expectation of future
business with the party he or she represents in the appraisal. Performing
consulting work prior to becoming a party appraiser does not meet that
standard.” (Id. ¶ 5.)
First,
Sjobring’s declaration fails to comply with the requirements of CCP § 2015.5.
Although the declaration has a signature, date, and was made under penalty of
perjury, it fails to state the place of execution and “it is so certified or
declared under the laws of the State of California.” (CCP § 2015.5.) Thus, the
Sjobring Declaration has no evidentiary value. (ViaView, Inc. v. Retzlaff (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 198, 217; see also
Kulshrestha v. First Union Commercial Corp. (2004) 33 Cal.App.4th 601,
610-611 [finding that nothing in the language of Section 2015.5 suggests that
the language of “under the laws of the State of California” is pointless or
optional].)
Accordingly,
no new or different fact, law, or circumstance is before the court that
warrants reconsideration of the Order.
Second,
a party seeking reconsideration of a prior order based on “new or different
facts, circumstances or law” must provide a satisfactory explanation for
failing to present the information at the first hearing; i.e., a showing
of reasonable diligence. (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58
Cal.App.4th 674, 690; see also Even Zohar Const. & Remodeling, Inc.
v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 830, 839 [finding that
Section 1008 imposes the special requirement of having to not only show new or
different facts, circumstances, or law, but also to “show diligence with a
satisfactory explanation for not presenting the new or different information
earlier…”].) Respondents fail to attach a declaration showing that diligence
and explaining why they could not have presented the Sjobring Declaration at
the prior hearing. Accordingly, the
court does not find that the Sjobring Declaration is a new or different fact,
law, or circumstance that warrants reconsideration of the Order.
The
Motion is denied.
Conclusion
Respondents’ motion for
reconsideration is denied.