Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 23STCV11373, Date: 2023-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV11373    Hearing Date: January 30, 2024    Dept: 56

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

OMNINET KIPLING, L.P.,

 

                        Plaintiff,

            vs.

 

DEANGELO GREENE, et al.,

 

                        Defendants.

 

      CASE NO.:  23STCV11373

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

 

Date:  January 30, 2024

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept. 56

Judge: Holly J. Fujie

 

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Deangelo Greene (“Moving Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff

 

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

 

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of a landlord/tenant relationship.  The complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges breach of lease. 

 

 

 

On December 19, 2023, the Court denied Moving Defendant’s motion to strike (the “MTS”) on the grounds that Moving Defendant failed to comply with the service requirements of CCP section 1005 and the legal basis for the MTS was unclear.

 

  On December 20, 2023, Moving Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration (the “Motion”).

 

DISCUSSION

Under 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, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, 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).) 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.  (Id.)  A party seeking reconsideration must also provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce the evidence at an earlier time.  (Id.) 

 

Under CCP section 1008, subdivision (b), a party who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or part, or granted conditionally or on terms, may make a subsequent application for the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, in which case it shall be shown 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. For a failure to comply with this subdivision, any order made on a subsequent application may be revoked or set aside on ex parte motion.  (CCP § 1008, subd. (b).)

 

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.)  When a demurrer has been sustained without leave to amend, it is proper to seek reconsideration based on a proposed amended complaint alleging different facts.  (See Rains v. Superior Court (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 933, 944.)  If, upon reconsideration, the proposed amended complaint states a valid cause of action, the court must vacate its prior order and grant the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.  (See Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1386-87.)  The trial court has discretion with respect to granting a motion for reconsideration.  (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212.)

 

The Motion does not present new or different facts, circumstances or law that warrant the reconsideration of the Court’s December 19, 2023 order.  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 30th day of January 2024

 

  

Hon. Holly J. Fujie 

Judge of the Superior Court