Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 22STCV14531, Date: 2024-02-13 Tentative Ruling

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant California Physicians’ Service d/b/a Blue Shield of California

On June 22, 2023, Plaintiff, Dylan Scott Perry, filed this action against Defendant, California Physicians’ Service d/b/a Blue Shield of California, alleging that Defendant intentionally cancelled Plaintiff’s health insurance policy. As a result, Plaintiff suffered emotional and physical distress, as well as monetary damages. The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on July 13, 2023. Plaintiff is self-represented.

On January 4, 2024, the court sustained Defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend. On the same day, the court signed an Order of Dismissal of Plaintiff’s action with prejudice.

“When 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 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, subd. (a).)¿ “A party seeking reconsideration also must provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce the evidence at an earlier time. [Citation.]”¿ (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212.)¿¿A motion for reconsideration is properly denied where it is based on evidence that could have been presented in connection with the original motion.¿ (Morris v. AGFA Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1460.)¿¿¿

¿ “The statutory provisions relating to motions for renewal (i.e., subsequent applications for the same order) are found in section 1008, subdivision (b).”¿ (Graham v. Hansen (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 965, 970.)¿ “A party who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or part, or granted conditionally or on terms, may make a subsequent application for the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, in which case it shall be shown 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. (b).)¿ “These provisions contain no requirement that a motion for renewal be made within the 10-day time period as is required for motions for reconsideration.”¿ (Graham, 128 Cal.App.3d at p. 970.)¿

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration, presumably, of the court’s January 4, 2024 order sustaining Defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend.

The court does not have jurisdiction to rule on this motion. “A court may reconsider its order granting or denying a motion and may even reconsider or alter its judgment so long as judgment has not yet been entered. Once judgment has been entered, however, the court may not reconsider it and loses its unrestricted power to change the judgment.” (Passavanti v. Williams (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1602, 1606.) Entry of an order for dismissal satisfies the entry of judgment requirement. (APRI Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 176, 181.)

Here, an Order of Dismissal was entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff on January 4, 2023. Given the entry of judgment, the court lacks jurisdiction to reconsider the order.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court