Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 20STCV47530, Date: 2023-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV47530    Hearing Date: April 25, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

The Court has considered the moving papers.  No opposition papers were filed.  Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) arises out of a dispute over the control of a non-profit corporation On February 2, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s application for default judgment (the “Application”).  In its February 2, 2023 order, the Court indicated that Plaintiff needed to file an amended pleading with legally sufficient allegations to state a cause of action under Corporations Code section 5617.  The February 2, 2023 order also stated that the Complaint would be dismissed if Plaintiff did not file an amended pleading. 

On March 9, 2023, following a non-appearance case review, the Court issued an order that dismissed the Complaint due to Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended pleading.  On March 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration (the “Motion”) requesting that the Court reconsider its March 9, 2023 dismissal order.

DISCUSSION

When an application for an order has been made to a judge or to a court and refused in whole or in part, granted, or granted conditionally, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order, make application to the same judge or court that made the order to reconsider the matter and modify, amend or revoke the prior order.  (CCP § 1008, subd. (a).)  Under CCP section 1008, subdivision (a), a motion for reconsideration must be based on new or different facts, circumstances or law.  (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212.)  A party seeking reconsideration must also provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce the evidence at an earlier time.  (Id.)  Facts of which the party seeking reconsideration was aware of at the time of the original ruling are not “new or different.”  (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690.)  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.  (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at 212.)

            The Court finds that the Motion does not meet the requirements of CCP section 1008, subdivision (a).  First, the Motion was filed more than ten days after notice of the February 2, 2023 order was given.  Second, the dismissal order was not issued as a response to any petition or application for order filed by Plaintiff; notably, the discussion in the Motion largely concerns the February 2, 2023 denial of the Application rather than the March 9, 2023 dismissal order.  Finally, the Motion does not set forth new or different facts that were not before the Court when it dismissed the Complaint.  The Court therefore DENIES the Motion.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. 

  Dated this 25th day of April 2023