Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV20680, Date: 2024-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV20680    Hearing Date: February 14, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

On June 7, 2019, Plaintiff Jacob Reich filed a Complaint against Defendant Mansour Hashem. On September 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (SAC)  alleging: (1) breach of written contract; (2) money had and received; (3) common counts; (4) open book account; (5) account stated; (6) failure to honor checks; (7) fraud; (8) negligence; (9) unjust enrichment; (10) judiciary foreclosure; and (11) reformation of contract.

Now, Defendant moves for reconsideration of the Court’s 10/18/2023 Order.

Discussion 

            Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Court’s 10/18/2023 wherein the Court partially granted Plaintiff’s request for an order of assignment, directing 40% of rents to Plaintiff.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (a), a motion for reconsideration must be brought “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.”  (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212.)  

Here, Defendant argues that “[i]n the case at hand, as per the declaration of defendant Mansour Hashem, clearly sets forth the new evidence that was not considered at the time of the hearing dated October 18, 2023.” (Motion, 3:28-4:1.) However, Defendant’s motion does not then identify what new evidence he is setting forth. Moreover, the standard for reconsideration is not merely the presentation of facts that weren’t considered in the original motion, but Defendant must show that those new facts were not available at the time of the hearing. “The party seeking reconsideration must provide not just new evidence or different facts, but a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce it at an earlier time.” (Mink v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1342).

            Defendant’s motion, like his other motion, also fail to attach any corroborating evidence. For example, Defendant now claims he pays alimony pursuant to a “verbal agreement” that he has been paying for 30 years. However, he submits no evidence in support of this, nor does he explain whether this is different from the “child support” he previously claimed to pay for his adult child. Defendant also claims Plaintiff blocked a sale to a prospective buyer a few months ago, but presents no evidence. He claims COVID-19 brought a reduction in income so Defendant had to “borrow money just to eat.” He submits no evidence to show this. Moreover, Defendant claims that the Court did not consider that he works as a full-time property manager for the properties. However, Defendant claimed suspiciously high monthly cleaning and maintenance fees that he was not able to corroborate with any evidentiary support. The Court still considered those sums when deciding to assign 40% of rental income. As such, the Court actually did consider income that goes toward Defendant’s maintenance of the properties.  

            Taken together, Defendant has not presented any new facts or law that would warrant reconsideration, nor has he presented any new evidence to corroborate his claims.

            Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is denied.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  February    , 2024

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.