Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 22BBCV00980, Date: 2025-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Counsel who wish to submit on the tentative ruling may do so by emailing BURDeptB@lacourt.org

PLEASE WRITE THE CASE NUMBER AND PARTY YOU REPRESENT.  YOU MAY ONLY SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF THE PARTY YOU REPRESENT.  YOU MAY NOT SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PARTY. Counsel are directed to cc all other counsel if you are submitting on the tentative ruling.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR NEED CLARIFICATION ON THE TENTATIVE, YOU MUST APPEAR AND ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE COURT.

IF BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE RULING, THE TENTATIVE RULING THEN BECOMES THE ORDER OF THE COURT ON THE MOTION DATE AND NO APPEARANCES ARE NECESSARY.

THERE WILL BE NO RESPONSES TO ANY INQUIRIES SUBMITTED THROUGH THIS SITE.

Warning regarding electronic appearances:    All software for remote or electronic appearances is subject to malfunction based on system weakness and human error, which can originate from any of the multiple parties participating each morning. The seamless operation of the Court’s electronic appearance software is dependent on numerous inconstant and fluctuating factors that may impact whether you, or other counsel or the Court itself can be heard in a particular case. Not all these factors are within the control of the courtroom staff. For example, at times, the system traps participants in electronic purgatories where they cannot be heard and where the courtroom staff is not aware of their presence. If you call the courtroom, please be respectful of the fact that a court hearing is going on, and that the courtroom staff is doing their best to use an imperfect system. If it is truly important to you to be heard, please show up to the courtroom in the normal way. Parking is free or reasonable in Burbank.

THANK YOU!

Case Number: 22BBCV00980    Hearing Date: January 10, 2025    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations of Complaint

Plaintiff John Doe (in pro per, “Plaintiff”) alleges that on November 15, 2021, he went to

the Bank of America branch at 5025 Lankershim Blvd. in North Hollywood. (Compl., ¶ 1.) Plaintiff alleges that while he was waiting in line at the bank, he began feeling Covid-like symptoms. (Compl., ¶¶ 2, 3.) Plaintiff alleges that he informed the bank manager of his health concerns, and the bank manager called the paramedics upon Plaintiff’s insistence. (Compl., ¶¶ 4, 5.) Plaintiff alleges that while he was waiting for the paramedics, he wanted to finish a transaction at the bank; however, when it was his turn, two paramedics from Defendant Los Angeles Fire Department appeared and made him go outside immediately, even though Plaintiff alleges that he needed only a moment to finish his bank transaction. (Compl., ¶¶ 7-10.) Plaintiff alleges that he told the paramedics about his concern about his ID and bank card inside the bank, the paramedics informed him that his bank transaction had been declined and that they had his cards, and they told him they would restrain him if he resisted. (Compl., ¶¶ 10-12.) Plaintiff alleges that he requested to be taken to USC Verdugo Hills Hospital, but they took him to Sherman Oaks Hospital instead. (Compl., ¶ 14.) Plaintiff alleges that the paramedics tried to give him medication, but he refused to take any medication that he was allergic to or that he was not given information about. (Compl., ¶¶ 17-18.) Plaintiff alleges that paramedics/Defendants Jeffrey Blake and August Weideman each injected him with Versed without his consent. (Compl., ¶¶ 21-22.) Plaintiff alleges that, “[o]n the following day, November 16, 2022 (sic), [he] awoke at Defendant Sherman Oaks Hospital . . . whereupon he was told he had rhabdomyolysis.” (Compl., ¶ 24.) Plaintiff alleges that “[t]he [h]ospital, its doctors, and staff failed to inform [him] during his stay that he also suffered from a form of heart attack known as Type 2 NSTEMI.” (Compl., ¶ 25.) 

            The complaint, filed November 16, 2022, alleges causes of action in the caption for: (1) negligence; (2) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (3) medical battery; (4) NIED; (5) IIED; (6) libel; (7) negligent misrepresentation; and (8) intentional misrepresentation. The body of the complaint does not list these causes of action out separately. The complaint is filed against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”), Los Angeles Fire Department (“LAFD”), August Weideman (“Weideman”), Jeffrey Blake (“Blake”), Prime Healthcare Services—Sherman Oaks, LLC dba Sherman Oaks Hospital (“PHS”), and Does 1-100 (collectively, “Defendants”). 

B.     Relevant Background

On January 26, 2024, Defendants City and August Weidmen (erroneously sued as August Weideman) (“Weidmen”) filed a demurrer to the complaint.

On February 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, which set forth 16 causes of action against Defendants for, among other causes of action, false imprisonment, violation of the Unruh Act, and libel per se.

On March 1, 2024, Defendants City and Weidmen filed a reply brief as to their demurrer.  

On March 8, 2024, after hearing oral argument and taking the matter under submission, the Court sustained the demurrer of Defendants City and Weidmen to the complaint without leave to amend. (03/08/24 Minute Order.) The Court also struck the First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on February 27, 2024, “as it was not timely filed and Plaintiff was not granted leave to file an amended complaint.” (03/08/24 Minute Order at p. 1.) Plaintiff did not appear at the hearing on the demurrer. (03/08/24 Minute Order.)

On May 16, 2024, Defendant PHS filed a demurrer to the complaint.

On August 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the Court’s March 8, 2024 orders, which dismissed Defendants City and Weidmen and sustained their demurrers without leave to amend.

On August 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed an amended and superseding motion to set aside the Court’s March 8, 2024 orders.

On September 6, 2024, after hearing oral argument and taking the matter under submission, the Court: (1) denied Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the Court’s March 8, 2024 orders, which dismissed Defendants City and Weidmen and sustained their demurrers without leave to amend; (2) denied Plaintiff’s amended and superseding motion to set aside the Court’s March 8, 2024 orders; and (3) sustained the demurrer of Defendant PHS to the complaint with 20 days leave to amend. (09/06/24 Minute Order at pp. 1-2.)

On September 6, 2024, the Clerk’s office mailed the Court’s September 6, 2024 minute order to counsel for Defendant PHS.

On September 19, 2024, Defendant PHS filed and served a notice of ruling as to the Court’s September 6, 2024 order. Plaintiff was served with such notice of ruling via electronic transmission.

C.     Motion on Calendar

On October 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s orders of September 6, 2024.  

As of January 7, 2025, the motion is unopposed. Any opposition was required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)

DISCUSSION

A.    Applicable Law/Legal Standard

            Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a) requires that a motion for reconsideration 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. (Ibid.)  A trial court’s ruling on a motion for reconsideration is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. (Ibid.) California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1008(a) provides that “[w]hen 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 . . . [may] 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a).) 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 206, 212.) 

            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. (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212-213.) The party seeking reconsideration must provide not only new evidence but also a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce that evidence at an earlier time. (Mink v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1342.)  If the trial court believes reconsideration is warranted, it can amend, modify or revoke its previous order. (Glade v. Glade (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1457.) A trial court’s ruling on a motion for reconsideration is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard.  (Ibid.) In the context of motions for reconsideration, there is “a strict requirement of diligence.” (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690.)  

B.     Analysis

Initially, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is untimely. Plaintiff was served with the Court’s September 6, 2024 order via electronic service on September 19, 2024. (See 09/19/24 Notice of Ruling.) While Plaintiff served the instant motion for reconsideration on September 30, 2024, the instant motion was not filed with the Court until October 1, 2024 at 12:08 A.M. The Court notes that 10 days from September 19, 2024 would have been September 29, 2024, which the Court acknowledges was a Sunday. Thus, Plaintiff’s last day to file the instant motion would have been Monday, September 30, 2024. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 12 (“The time in which any act provided by law is to be done is computed by excluding the first day, and including the last, unless the last day is a holiday, and then it is also excluded.”).) When the last day for filing is on a Sunday, the period extends to the next day, which is a Monday. (People v. Kirk (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 203, 205.) Where a motion for reconsideration is untimely, a “trial court . . . [is] without jurisdiction to consider [the] motion.” (In re Marriage of Furie (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 816, 831.)

Given that Plaintiff filed the instant motion with the Court on October 1, 2024, which is beyond the 10-day deadline of September 30, 2024, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion and must deny the motion.

The Court has also reviewed Plaintiff’s declaration in support of the motion.  Plaintiff’s declaration sets forth the difficulties he encountered attempting to appear remotely at the March 8, 2024 demurrer hearing. (Doe Decl., ¶¶ 2-6; Exh. A, B, C.) Plaintiff believes that the Court’s computer systems denied him his due process right to appear at the demurrer hearing by lulling him “into a false sense of security that no hearing would in fact be occurring.” (Doe Decl., ¶ 9.) Plaintiff sets forth disabilities that he suffers from and indicates that he was experiencing repeated difficulties with the electronic filing system, which led to the First Amended Complaint being filed late and him filing the wrong version of the First Amended Complaint. (Doe Decl., ¶ 10.) Plaintiff states that his medical conditions have worsened. (Doe Decl., ¶¶ 12-14.) Plaintiff attests that he can amend the complaint. (Doe Decl., ¶ 16.)

Even if Plaintiff’s motion had been timely filed, the Court would have found that Plaintiff has failed to show “new or different facts, circumstances, or law.” (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212.) While Plaintiff attests that on the morning of May 8, 2024, he began to experience left-sided severe chest pain and left shoulder/arm secondary to anxiety (Doe Decl., ¶ 12), the Court fails to see how such medical conditions have any impact on this Court’s September 6, 2024 orders. Plaintiff appeared via LA Court Connect at the Court’s September 6, 2024 order. (09/06/24 Minute Order at p. 1.) Plaintiff has not attested to any new or different facts, circumstances, or law. Critically, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s declaration in support of the instant motion is substantially similar to his declaration that was attached to his amended and superseding motion to set aside and vacate the Court’s March 8, 2024 orders but-for three paragraphs. Thus, Plaintiff has not provided any new or different facts, circumstances, or law as the statements made in the instant declaration have already been placed before the Court pursuant to his declaration in support of his amended and superseding motion to set aside and vacate the Court’s March 8, 2024 orders.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s orders of September 6, 2024 is DENIED.    

            Plaintiff John Doe shall provide notice of this order.

DATED:  January 10, 2025                                        ___________________________

                                                                              John Kralik

                                                                              Judge of the Superior Court