Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 22STCV18851, Date: 2024-12-18 Tentative Ruling

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants/Cross-Defendants Bohm, Wildish, & Matsen, LLP (“Defendants”)

This action arises out of an attorney-client relationship. On June 8, 2022, Plaintiff Dana Urick (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint alleging (1) negligence (legal malpractice); (2) breach of fiduciary duty; and (3) breach of contract.

On October 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a revised motion to disqualify the Honorable James L. Crandall (Ret.). The Court heard the motion and issued a ruling on October 28, 2024. The Court denied the motion on the ground that Plaintiff had not shown evidence of bias (see 10/28/24 Order re: Motion to Disqualify/Recuse Judicial Reference)

On November 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Denying the Motion to Disqualify (the “Motion”). On December 5, 2024, Defendants filed an Opposition.

A motion for reconsideration is used to ask the court to modify, amend, or revoke its earlier order on a prior motion to the court because of new or different facts, circumstances, or law. (Code of Civil Procedure “CCP” § 1008, subd. (a).) Such an order may involve an interim or final order (CCP § 1008, subds. (e), (h)), where an interim order is an intermediate ruling of some kind that requires further proceedings before the suit can be resolved, and where a final order is an order that finally disposes of the suit (see People v. DeLouize (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1223, 1231 [differentiating between interim and final orders]).

A motion for reconsideration may be brought by a party or by the court on its own motion. (CCP § 1008, subds. (a), (c).) The grounds for the motion vary depending on whether a party or the Court is making the motion. (CCP § 1008, subds. (a), (c), (e).)

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.) However, a party cannot move reconsideration based on the court’s erroneous order, i.e., the court’s misinterpretation of facts or law. (See Jones v. P.S. Dev. Co. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 707, 724, disapproved on other grounds by Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 531-532, 532 n. 4.)

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. (Ibid.)

Moreover, there is a strict requirement of diligence, which means 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 trial. (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212-213.)

Plaintiff argues that the October 28, 2024 Order should be reconsidered because there is new evidence. On October 30, 2024, Plaintiff received a 5-Day Notice from Judicate West which states that Judge Crandall accepted a mediation involving Defendants counsel’s law firm, Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman, LLP (“Wood Smith”). (Mot. p. 2:3-6.) Plaintiff argues that this reinforces her previous assertions of bias and thus the Court should reconsider the ruling denying the motion to disqualify.

In opposition, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to present new facts or evidence because Judge Crandall’s involvement with other Wood Smith matters was also the basis of Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify. Defendants also note that the mediation Plaintiff was notified about in the 5-Day Notice from Judicate West does not involve any of the same lawyers that are representing Defendants in this matter. (Opp. p. 5:17-19.)

The purported new evidence which Plaintiff presents as the basis for her Motion does not qualify as new or different facts or circumstances within the meaning of CCP section 1008. In ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify, the Court considered the arguments that Judge Crandall presided over other matters with Wood Smith. Thus, the October 30 notice that Judge Crandall accepted a mediation involving Wood Smith is not a new circumstance that the Court did not previously consider in ruling on the motion. Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED.

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.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court