Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 22STCV02561, Date: 2023-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV02561    Hearing Date: April 4, 2024    Dept: 61

Defendant Armen Ambarachyan’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

I.       MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Code Civ. Proc. § 1008 is the exclusive means for seeking reconsideration of an order or renewing a motion.  (Kerns v. CSE Ins. Group (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 368, 384.)  The application to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order must be made within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order to the same judge or court that made the order.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a).) A motion for reconsideration may only be brought if the party moving for reconsideration can offer “new or different facts, circumstances, or law” which it could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the time of the prior motion.  (Id.) There is a strict requirement of diligence - i.e., 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.) “The burden under section 1008 is comparable to that of a party seeking a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence: the information must be such that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced it at the trial.” (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212–13.)

Defendant Armen Ambarachyan (Defendant) seeks reconsideration of this court’s order of January 4, 2024 order denying his prior motion for sanctions. Defendant bases the present motion on this court’s ruling of December 7, 2023, sustaining Defendant’s demurrer to the second and third causes of action contained in the First Amended Complaint (FAC).

The motion is doubly defective. First, although the motion is unopposed, it is unaccompanied by any proof of service.

Second, Defendant shows no entitlement to reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure § 1008. Defendant cites this court’s December 7, 2023 order on its demurrer, but this order was issued a month before the ruling on Defendant’s motion for sanctions, and was within the contemplation of the court and parties at the time. Defendant advances no “new or different facts” upon which to base the request for reconsideration.

The motion is therefore DENIED.