Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV02128, Date: 2024-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV02128    Hearing Date: May 2, 2024    Dept: 27

HON. LEE S. ARIAN

DEPARTMENT 27

TENTATIVE RULING

Hearing Date:           5/2/2024 at 1:30 p.m.

Case No./Name:       22STCV02128 STEADFAST INSURANCE COMPANY vs SANDY BROWN

Motion:                    MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Moving Party:           Defendant Sandy Brown

Responding Party:    Plaintiff

Notice:                      Sufficient

Ruling:                    MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED

Legal Standard

CCP section 1008(a) states

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.  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.

A court acts in excess of jurisdiction when it grants a motion to reconsider that is not based upon “new or different facts, circumstances or law.” (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1499.) Motions for reconsideration are restricted to circumstances where a party offers the Court some fact or circumstance not previously considered, and some valid reason for not offering it earlier. (Id.)

Moreover, there is a strict requirement of diligence, which means the moving party must present a satisfactory explanation for failing to provide the evidence or different facts earlier. (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690.) 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 trial. (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212-213.)

Background

On January 19, 2022, Plaintiff Steadfast Insurance Company filed the present UIM claim against Defendant Sandy Brown. On January 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to deem requests for admission (RFA), set one, admitted. On August 30, 2023, the Court issued an order deeming the RFAs admitted. On September 13, 2023, Plaintiff notified Defendant by email that the Court had deemed the requests admitted.  E-mail correspondence between the parties reflects that Defendant received that September 13 email.  On March 14, 2024, Plaintiff served a “notice of ruling” of the Court’s 8/30/23 decision on Defendant. On March 25, 2024, Defendant moved the Court to reconsider its 8/30/23 order to deem RFA, set one, admitted, arguing that (1) she provided responses to the RFAs, which the Court did not consider; (2) she did not receive notice of the motion to deem the RFAs admitted; and (3) she was not aware of the Court's order until she received the notice of ruling on March 14, 2024, as a result of which she was sufficiently diligent in bringing the present motion.

Analysis

Defendant first argues that the Court considered the fact that Plaintiff did not receive any discovery responses in rendering its decision on August 30, 2023, to deem RFA, set one, admitted. Defendant attached her responses to RFA showing that responses were actually served by the statutory deadline. The Court reviewed Defendant's evidence, which shows that Defendant did serve responses to RFA, Set One, on July 30, 2021, to Plaintiff’s prior counsel. However, these discovery responses were not accompanied by the necessary verification. Non-verified discovery responses are the equivalent of no discovery responses.  (See Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636).  In fact, Defendant only recently provided her verification, on March 30, 2024, nearly three years after the non-verified responses. Defendant argues that the associate responsible for the verifications abruptly departed from the firm and failed to notify Defendant that the verifications had not been included with the RFA responses. Nonetheless, no verification was served when the Court rendered its decision.  Thus, although these are new facts not considered by the Court in rendering its August 30, 2023 ruling, they would not affect the outcome of the Court's decision to deem the RFAs admitted, as the responses served were unverified.

Defendant's second argument that she did not receive notice of the 1/13/23 motion to deem RFAs admitted because it was served on the wrong email address is not supported by evidence. The motion was served on hespanah@yahoo.com; the parties had been corresponding and using hespanah@yahoo.com up until January 13, 2023, just 12 days before the motion to deem RFAs admitted was filed. (Plf’s Ex. C.)  Plaintiff did not produce any evidence to show that she proactively provided any notification to Defendant that notice to hespanah@yahoo.com was no longer appropriate as of the filing of the motion to deem RFAs admitted. 

Defendant’s third argument that she did not receive the Court’s ruling to deem RFAs admitted until March 24, 2024, is also not supported by the evidence. Email communication shows that on September 13, 2023, defense counsel Vania Nemanpour, inquired if RFA had been deemed admitted.  Plaintiff’s counsel responded in the same e-mail chain, a mere 12 minutes later, that “[t]he court deemed all RFAs admitted.  (Oppositon, Ex. D).  On January 9, 2024, Plaintiff sent a formal letter notifying Defendant of the Court’s September 19, 2023 order to deem RFA admitted. (Ex. G.)  Thus, Defendant was aware of the Court’s order to deem RFA admitted as early as September 13, 2023.

Motions to reconsider impose on the moving party a strict requirement of diligence, meaning the moving party must present a satisfactory explanation for failing to provide the evidence or different facts earlier. (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690.) Defendant was aware of the Court's order as early as September 13, 2023, and learned that discovery had previously been served on September 14, 2023 (Ex. A). Despite this knowledge, Defendant did not file a motion for relief or any other motion for over seven months. This lack of action demonstrates a lack of diligence on the part of the Defendant.

Defendant has failed to diligently present the discovery of new facts to the Court's attention. Therefore, her motion to reconsider is DENIED.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept27@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.