Judge Jill Feeney, Case Number: 22STCP00957, Date: 2024-03-21 Tentative Ruling

This is a petition to confirm arbitration award. Petitioner Blum Collins, LLC filed a petition to confirm a $802,433.85 arbitration award it obtained against Respondents Respondents Acuity Consulting Services and Erik Cooper.

(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, Cooper first moves for reconsideration on the grounds that the Court failed to comply with its May 18, 2023 minute order setting forth the procedure for submitting a unified settled statement. Cooper also argues that the Court failed to consider Petitioner’s non-compliance with the May 18, 2023 order and failed to conduct a hearing on Cooper’s motion to modify court hearing. Cooper alleges that after he sent a proposed settled statement to Petitioner, Petitioner failed to send the statement back to Cooper by June 29, 2023. Petitioner then filed a joint settled statement despite Cooper never having the opportunity to respond to Petitioner’s position on the statement.

On July 3, 2023, Cooper filed a notice of Petitioner’s non-compliance with the court’s May 18, 2023 order. Cooper alleged that his proposed separate statement, due June 15, 2023, was not transmitted on time due to a technical failure. Thereafter, Petitioner failed to respond to Cooper’s communications about the settled statement.

On July 14, 2023, Petitioner filed a proposed joint settled statement with the Court. In a declaration filed the same day, Petitioner’s counsel testified that Cooper failed to transmit his proposed settled statement until June 26, 2023. Petitioner emailed its comments and additions to the proposed joint statement to Cooper on June 30, 2023 and did not receive an error message or any other indication that Cooper had not received the statement. On July 14, 2023, the day the unified statement was due, Cooper emailed Petitioner’s counsel stating he never received Petitioner’s response to the separate statement. To comply with the Court’s May 18, 2023 order, Petitioner submitted a joint statement without Cooper’s responses.

On August 17, 2023, the Court determined that there was limited agreement on what happened at the hearings in 2022 and the parties failed to submit a settled statement without irrelevant material. Because the parties could not complete the procedure set forth in May 2023, the Court opted to conduct a hearing on the settled statement in lieu of allowing the parties to submit a settled statement on their own. Because the original judicial officer was unavailable, the Court set a hearing to resolve the disputed matters in the proposed settled statement. On September 28, 2023, the Court heard testimony arguments from both parties with respect to the proposed settled statement.

The records show that the fact that the parties did not complete the procedure set forth by the Court on May 18, 2023 was available information and was considered at the time of the September 29, 2023 order. Additionally, Cooper had an opportunity to be heard at the September 28, 2023 hearing. Therefore, these facts are not new facts or circumstances which would justify reconsideration under Code Civ. Proc., section 1008.

Cooper next argues that the Court failed to rule on his disability accommodation request filed October 27, 2022. Cooper alleges the Court denied Cooper the opportunity to complete cross-examination of a witness and provide additional testimony at the September 28, 2023. However, Cooper’s disability accommodation request was granted on November 17, 2022. Additionally, Cooper does not explain how his disability accommodation has any bearing on the September 29, 2023 order. Finally, the September 28, 2023 hearing was conducted to resolve the parties disputes with respect to the settled statement so that Cooper’s appeal could proceed. There are no new facts, circumstances, or law which would justify reconsideration under Code Civ. Proc., section 1008.

Cooper finally argues that the Court should not have given credibility to Petitioner’s counsel’s testimony. However, disagreeing with a court ruling is not a basis upon which reconsideration under Code Civ. Proc., section 1008 may be granted.