Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 23SMCV02764, Date: 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV02764    Hearing Date: February 8, 2024    Dept: O

TENSOR LAW P.C., et al. vs GERALD I. GILLOCK, et al

Case No. 23SMCV02764

HEARING DATE: 2-8-2024

SUBJECT: Plaintiff Aaron G. Filler’s Motion for Reconsideration

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Filler’s Motion For Reconsideration is DENIED.  Plaintiff did not file his motion with an affidavit required by CCP § 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, subd., (a).)  Filler filed his sworn declaration on 1-24-24 to correct his original filing on 11-13-23.  Filler cannot cure an incorrect filing for a motion for reconsideration by filing the supporting affidavit at a later time.  (See Branner v. Regents of Univ. of California (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1048 [motion for reconsideration that was filed without a supporting affidavit was invalid, and movant’s subsequent late filing of an affidavit did not convert the motion “from invalid to valid”].)  Moreover, a party seeking reconsideration 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 CA4th 674, 690;  California Correctional Peace Officers Ass'n v. Virga (2010) 181 CA4th 30, 47, fn.15.  Tensor’s late filed declaration fails to show why his claimed new argument was not addressed at the first hearing.  In fact, it was.   Reconsideration cannot be granted based on claims the court misinterpreted the law in its initial ruling (as opposed to a change in the law in the interim). That is not a “new” or “different” matter. [Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.] Similarly, ignorance of the law is not a proper basis for reconsideration. [Pazderka v. Caballeros Dimas Alang, Inc. (1998) 62 CA4th 658, 670.]  Simply put, there are no new facts, circumstances, or law identified in the Motion or affidavit as required by CCP 1008(a). 

The Clerk is to give notice.