Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 23STCV25626, Date: 2024-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV25626    Hearing Date: November 14, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

On 10/20/2023, Plaintiff Mural Media, LLC 401 K. Plan (Plaintiff) filed an unlawful detainer action against Linda J. Maultsby (Defendant).

On 9/30/24, Defendant moved for reconsideration of the Court’s 9/18/2024 order overruling Defendant’s demurrer.

Legal Standard

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.) 

Discussion 

            Defendant argues that reconsideration of the Court’s 9/18/2024 Order is warranted because Plaintiff’s FAC was filed without leave of Court, and because the previous ruling was in error.

            As to the first contention, Defendant seeks reconsideration of the 9/18/2024 demurrer ruling based on her argument that her demurrer to the original complaint—not the FAC— was taken off calendar in error when she did not appear at the hearing on those demurrers. However, first, this is not a new fact, as this procedural action was known at the time of the 9/18/2024 hearing, nor has Plaintiff identified any new law not known at the time. Second, the 9/18/2024 ruling concerned Defendant’s demurrer to the FAC. As such, Defendant’s argument that the Court purportedly erred when it vacated her demurrers to the original complaint and deemed the FAC valid on 3/4/2024 is untimely. (CCP § 1008, subd. (a).)

            As to the second contention, Defendant expressly asks the Court to reconsider the “actual grounds pleaded and arguments made in demurrers to the FAC and reply papers.” (See Motion, 2: 10.) However, a motion for reconsideration cannot simply ask the Court to “reevaluate” or “reanalyze” pre-existing factual and/or legal issues and/or arguments previously made. (See Crotty v. Trader (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 765, 771.) The Court considered all submitted moving papers when reaching its 9/18/2024 ruling. Accordingly, the Court may not properly reevaluate its substantive decision, unless there are some new facts or law which would warrant such reconsideration. Defendant has not identified any applicable new facts or law.

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

It is so ordered.

Dated:  November    , 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.