Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 22SMCV00791, Date: 2023-11-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV00791    Hearing Date: November 30, 2023    Dept: O

  Case Name:  Doe v. Raanan, et al.

SUBJECT:                 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE DISCRETIONARY RELIEF UNDER CCP § 437(B)

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Jane Doe, C.S.

RESP. PARTY:         Defendants Justin Raanan, D.D.S., MMSC, et al.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff Jane Doe, C.S.’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Discretionary Relief under CCP § 437(b) in the alternative is GRANTED.   Plaintiff’s counsel’s conduct of failing to review the 7-25-23 Minute Order amounted to excusable neglect. Plaintiff’s counsel acted with diligence in filing this motion, and granting the motion will not prejudice the Defendants.   

            On July 25, 2023, the Court heard Defendants motion for an order directing the Plaintiff Jane Doe to file an amended complaint using her true name.  The Court’s tentative ruling was to grant the motion.  At the hearing Plaintiff’s counsel requested leave to file a supplemental declaration in opposition to Defendant’s motion to show “the risk plaintiff faces if her name is revealed.”    The Court orally continued the hearing to October 31, 2023.  In lieu of permitting Plaintiff to file a supplemental declaration in opposition to Defendants’ motion, the Court directed Plaintiff to file the appropriate motion for Plaintiff to proceed anonymously, to be heard at the same time as Defendant’s continued motion.  After the hearing the Court issued a minute order changing the date of the continued hearing from October 31, 2023 to August 31, 2023.

            As of August 31, 2023, Plaintiff had not filed her motion to proceed anonymously and failed to appear at the August 31, hearing.  At that hearing the Court adopted it prior tentative ruling and granted the Defendant’s motion.

            CCP “[S]ections 437c, subdivision (f)(2), and 1008 prohibit a party from making renewed motions not based on new facts or law, but do not limit a court's ability to reconsider its previous interim orders on its own motion, as long as it gives the parties notice that it may do so and a reasonable opportunity to litigate the question.” (Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1096–1097, as modified (June 10, 2005).)

            Mr. Goldberg argues his failure to appear at the 8-31-23 hearing, plus the failure to “carefully review” the 7-25-23 Minute Order amounts to excusable neglect because he reasonably believed that the hearing would occur on 10-31-23 “as the Court repeatedly stated at the hearing.” (Motion, pp. 12–13; Goldberg Decl., ¶ 18.) Under the circumstances of this case the Court finds Mr. Goldberg’s failure to appear at the hearing on August 31 to be excusable neglect. 

            The Court, therefore, vacates is order of 8-31-2023 granting Defendant’s motion, without prejudice to rehearing that motion concurrently with the Plaintiff’s motion to proceed anonymously, as was contemplated by the Court in the Court’s July 25, 2023 minute order.  The Court will hear argument on both of those motions on November 30, 2023.  No tentative ruling regarding those motions will be posted before the hearing.