Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV26855, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26855    Hearing Date: April 27, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant

The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of an alleged breach of an agreement (the “Agreement”) to purchase real property (the “Property”) entered into by Moving Defendant as the seller of the Property and Plaintiff’s predecessor in interest, HSK Properties, LLC.

On December 15, 2022, the Court granted a motion to expunge lis pendens (the “Lis Pendens Motion”) filed by Defendant and ordered that the lis pendens placed on the Property by Plaintiff be expunged on the grounds that Plaintiff did not establish the probable validity of its real property claims. 

On December 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration (the “Motion”) asking that the Court reconsider its ruling on the Lis Pendens Motion based on different facts and circumstances.

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

            Defendant’s objections are SUSTAINED in their entirety.

DISCUSSION

Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1008, subdivision (a), 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.  A trial court has discretion with respect to granting a motion for reconsideration.  (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at 212.)

            Plaintiff argues that the Court should reconsider the Lis Pendens Motion on the grounds that Plaintiff did not have the opportunity to present evidence to rebut evidence that Defendant introduced in its reply brief (the “Lis Pendens Reply”).  The Court does not find this to be a basis for reconsideration.  First, the evidence Defendant presented in its Lis Pendens Reply was responsive to evidence that Plaintiff introduced in its opposition brief (the “Lis Pendens Opposition”).  Moreover, the evidence presented in the Lis Pendens Reply did not form the basis for the Court’s decision.  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 27th day of April 2023