Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 22STCV16247, Date: 2023-11-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16247    Hearing Date: April 2, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Edmond Durham (“Plaintiff”) moves for reconsideration of the Court’s January 30, 2024 order enforcing Plaintiff’s settlement agreement with Defendants Jose P. Laguna and the Jose P. Laguna Trust (collectively, “Defendants”).

The Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration.

Background

Plaintiff Edmond Durham (“Durham”) filed this action on May 16, 2022 against Defendants, alleging breach of contract related to a property that Plaintiff rented from Defendants.

The parties entered a settlement of the matter outside of the presence of the court. (Swartz Decl. ¶¶ 3-6; Exh. A.) The settlement agreement provides that Plaintiff would vacate the property by June 30, 2023 and would notify Defendants’ attorney once Plaintiff had vacated. (Swartz Decl., Exh. A ¶¶ 1-3.) The settlement also provides that the prevailing party in any dispute to enforce the settlement will be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. (Swartz Decl., Exh. A ¶ 18.)

As of November 22, 2023, Plaintiff had not moved out and had not paid any rent since April 2023. Defendant’s attorney also has not been notified that Plaintiff has vacated the property.

On January 30, 2024, the Court granted Defendants’ unopposed motion to enforce the settlement agreement and for attorney’s fees pursuant to the agreement.

            Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the January 30, 2024 order on February 23, 2024. Defendants filed an opposition. Plaintiff did not file a reply.

Legal Standard

Within ten days of service of an order, a party may move for reconsideration based on new facts, circumstances, or law.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a); see also Mink v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1342.)  The moving party shall state by affidavit what application was made before, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to be shown.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd .(a).)  “[T]he 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.”  (Glade v. Glade (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1457.)  The legislative intent was to restrict motions for reconsideration to circumstances where a party offers the court some fact or circumstance not previously considered and some valid reason for not offering it earlier.  (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.) 

“If those requirements have been met to the satisfaction of the court but the court is not persuaded the earlier ruling was erroneous, the proper course to grant reconsideration and to reaffirm the earlier ruling.” (Corns v. Miller (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 195, 202.)

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (c).)

Discussion

Plaintiff argues that the settlement agreement should be set aside because he did not understand the consequences of the agreement at the time of his signing and disagrees with the agreement. Plaintiff states that he no longer has an attorney due to the fact that he does not agree with the settlement.

This is not a valid basis for reconsideration. Insofar as Plaintiff has an argument that he did not assent to the settlement agreement, that argument could have been raised on the initial motion to enforce the settlement. There are no new facts warranting reconsideration.

Plaintiff argues that he should be permitted to obtain relief from judgment under Code of Civil Procedure, section 473, subd. (b). The Court does not find that Plaintiff has met the standard for such relief and has not sufficiently shown mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

The Court denies the motion for reconsideration.