Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV17722, Date: 2025-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17722    Hearing Date: May 9, 2025    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., individually and behalf of Home Equity Department of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (collectively, “Wells Fargo”)

            The Court has reviewed the moving and opposition papers.  No reply papers were filed. 

BACKGROUND

             On May 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) alleging: (1) accounting; and (2) general negligence.  On September 28, 2022, the Court sustained Wells Fargo’s demurrer (the “Demurrer”) to the Complaint without leave to amend.  On September 29, 2022, Wells Fargo served Plaintiff with notice of the September 28, 2022 ruling.  On November 2, 2022, the Court issued an order dismissing the Complaint as to Wells Fargo with prejudice.           

            On June 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to vacate void orders (the “Motion”) asking that the Court void the May 5, 2023, November 10, 2022 and September 27, 2022 orders. On August 21, 2023, Wells Fargo filed an opposition. 

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. (Code Civil Procedure (“CCP”), § 1008, subd. (a).)

            A party may move for reconsideration based on: (1) new or different facts, (CCP, § 1008, subd. (a); see e.g., In re Marriage of LaMoure (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1473 [reconsideration motion granted on new evidence]); (2) new or different circumstances, (CCP, § 1008, subd. (a)); and (3) new or different law, (CCP, § 1008, subd. (a); Baldwin v. Home Sav. of Am. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1196.)

A court acts in excess of jurisdiction when it grants a motion to reconsider that is not based upon “new or different facts, circumstances or law.”  (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1499.)  Motions for reconsideration are restricted to circumstances where a party offers the Court some fact or circumstance not previously considered, and some valid reason for not offering it earlier. (Id.) 

            A court loses jurisdiction to hear a motion for reconsideration once judgment is entered.  (APRI Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 176, 181-182.) “The issue is jurisdictional. Once the trial court has entered judgment, it is without power to grant reconsideration.” (Id. at 182.)  On November 2, 2022, the Court entered an order of dismissal in this matter, with prejudice. Accordingly, the Court is jurisdictionally barred from reconsidering the orders.

            Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

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 9th day of May 2025