Judge: Joel R Wohlfeil, Case: 37-2022-00051003-CU-MC-CTL, Date: 2023-11-09 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 07, 2023

11/09/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-73 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Joel R. Wohlfeil

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Misc Complaints - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00051003-CU-MC-CTL NGUYEN VS DEMERY [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 10/09/2023

The Motion (ROA # 138) of Plaintiff Victoria Nguyen ('Plaintiff') for reconsideration of the Court's order granting Defendants Moore and Ramirez's anti-SLAPP Motion on September 29, 2023, is DENIED.

'... [A]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.' Code Civ. Proc. 1008(a).

'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 the trial .... Case law after the 1992 amendments to section 1008 has relaxed the definition of 'new or different facts,' but it is still necessary that the party seeking that relief offer some fact or circumstance not previously considered by the court ....' New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal. App. 4th 206, 212, 213 (internal citations omitted).

The moving party must have a 'satisfactory explanation for failing to provide the evidence earlier, which can only be described as a strict requirement of diligence.' Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 674, 690.

Plaintiff's Motion does not provide any new facts about the case or a change in the law. Instead, Plaintiff reiterates the same arguments contained in the opposition to the original Motion, and submits documents that were available prior to the original hearing date. Plaintiff's Motion demonstrates Plaintiff was aware of the existence of the police department records. Plaintiff argues Defendants did not submit certain documents that support Plaintiff's case, but Defendants are not required to prove Plaintiff's case.

Finally, even assuming the evidence presented with this Motion constitutes new or different facts or circumstances, this evidence is not sufficient. Plaintiff fails to identify any facts showing that Defendants acted with malice. There is no evidence of hatred or ill will toward Plaintiff, or that Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for believing in the truth of their statements to the police.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3034229