Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 21STCV32903, Date: 2023-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV32903    Hearing Date: May 23, 2023    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka                                                                                            Tuesday, May 23, 2023

Department B                                                                                                                             Calendar No. 8

PROCEEDINGS

Sridevi Mudundi v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., et al.   

21STCV32903

1.      Sridevi Mudundi’s Motion for Reconsideration        

TENTATIVE RULING

            Sridevi Mudundi’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied.   

Background

Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on September 7, 2021.  Plaintiffs allege the following facts. The action pertains to the care and treatment rendered to Plaintiff Sridevi Mudundi during a hysterectomy performed at South Bay Kaiser on February 14, 2019.  Plaintiffs allege Mudundi suffered an injury to the bladder due to a cut that was discovered two days later when Mudundi presented to the emergency room with severe pain. Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action: (1) Negligence and (2) Loss of Consortium (brought by Plaintiff Balakrishna Reddy Naini). On December 7, 2022, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment was granted.

Motion for Reconsideration

CCP § 1008(a) states: “When an application for an order has been made to 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.”  In addition, the party seeking reconsideration must provide not just new or different facts, circumstance, or law, but a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce it at an earlier time.  See, Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690.

Pursuant to CCP § 1008, Plaintiffs move for reconsideration of the Court’s order issued on December 7, 2022, granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations pursuant to CCP § 340.5, in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs.  As the ground for the instant motion, Plaintiffs state the existence of a purported new fact – the previous filing of a legal action, 20STCV06225, on February 14, 2020, based on the same events as alleged in the instant action.  That prior action was dismissed without prejudice on August 13, 2021.

Plaintiffs’ motion is denied because Plaintiffs failed to provide new facts, circumstances, or law to warrant reconsideration of the Court’s prior order.  A dismissal without prejudice does not bar the filing of another action on the same facts so long as the new action is filed within the statute of limitations.  A dismissal is “‘without prejudice’ to a plaintiff's filing of a new action on the same allegations if it is done within the period of the appropriate statute of limitations.”  Wells v. Marina City Properties, Inc. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 781, 784.  “[A] party's voluntary dismissal without prejudice does not come equipped by law with an automatic tolling or waiver of all relevant limitations periods; instead, such a dismissal includes the very real risk that an applicable statute of limitations will run before the party is in a position to renew the dismissed cause of action.”  Hill v. City of Clovis (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 434, 445.  “In the absence of a statute, a party cannot deduct from the period of the statute of limitations applicable to his case the time consumed by the pendency of an action in which he sought to have the matter adjudicated, but which was dismissed without prejudice to him[.][¶]  This rule, of course, is wholly in accord with the policy in favor of the prompt prosecution of legal claims, whereas the proposition advanced by plaintiff might well operate in defiance of that policy.  If a timely action dismissed without prejudice were, without more, to have the effect of tolling the statute of limitations during the pendency of that action, an indefinite extension of the statutory period—through successive filings and dismissals—might well result.”  Wood v. Elling Corp. (1977) 20 Cal.3d 353, 359–360.  The instant action was not filed within the applicable statute of limitations for the detailed reasons already provided in the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.  Therefore, this purported “new” fact presented by Plaintiffs does not warrant reconsideration of the Court’s prior order.

            Confronted with the decisive authority noted above, Plaintiffs’ Reply simply attempts to re-argue the facts of the original motion for summary judgment by again arguing that November 2020 should be the date utilized as the accrual date.  The Court refers the parties to the Court’s prior order granting summary judgment which addressed and rejected, in detail, this argument.

In addition, Plaintiffs fail to provide any valid explanation as to why the purported “new” fact was not presented earlier. Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690.  Plaintiffs clearly had knowledge that a prior lawsuit had been filed at the time of the hearing of the motion for summary judgment.  That Plaintiffs’ current counsel claims no knowledge of the prior lawsuit is not significant because the “new” fact was clearly in the possession of the parties themselves.

Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is denied.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.