Judge Jill Feeney, Case Number: 18STCV01900, Date: 2024-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

Defendant. Case No.: 18STCV01900

Hearing Date: March 7, 2024

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:

MOTION TO RECONSIDER FILED BY PLAINTIFF DERMOT GIVENS

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Court’s order entered on October 17, 2023 granting Defendant’s motion for a directed verdict and entering judgment in favor of Defendant.

Code Civ. Proc., section 1008 states:

(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. 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.

(c) If a court at any time determines that there has been a change of law that warrants it to reconsider a prior order it entered, it may do so on its own motion and enter a different order.

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.)

Here, Plaintiff moves for reconsideration on the grounds that five allegedly disputed facts remain over whether a reasonable officer would have found probable cause to arrest him based on the information available to the officers at the time of the arrest. Plaintiff alleges the following facts remain disputed:

1. Officer Grace only relied on information that he had received on his LAPD electronic devices while at the scene that there was a neighbor dispute at 1628 N. Formosa involving disturbing the peace.

2. The officers relied on information from Leslie that he was woken from his sleep by plaintiff while outside of Unit B’s living area.

3. The officers relied on information from Brown that plaintiff was served the restraining order.

4. The officers relied on information from Brown that Plaintiff had violated Leslie’s restraining order.

5. The officers relied only on their observations at the scene and information provided to them on their LAPD electronic devices, statements by Leslie, and statements by Brown that Plaintiff had violated Leslie’s restraining order.

Although Plaintiff alleges these facts constitute new evidence that was not considered by the Court at the time Defendant made its motion for directed verdict, Plaintiff admits that the evidence presented at trial included statements from Leslie and Brown, recordings of the incident, the officers’ observations, the officers’ statements, and a recording of the 911 call officers overheard on their LAPD electronic devices. (Motion, p.2.) Additionally, the Court considered all the facts when Defendant made its motion for directed verdict and determined there was no factual dispute over the circumstances of Plaintiff’s arrest and that issue to be decided was a legal one, whether based on the undisputed facts as to what the officers knew at the time of Plaintiff’s arrest, there was probable cause for Plaintiff’s arrest. (Opp., Exhs. 1, 2.) The facts are not new evidence because they were available at the time Defendant made its motion for directed verdict. Plaintiff fails allege new or different facts, circumstances, or law which would justify reconsideration under Code Civ. Proc., section 1008.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied.

DATED: March 7, 2024

___________________________

Judge of the Superior Court