Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 23STCV16269, Date: 2024-10-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV16269, Date: 2024-10-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV16269 Hearing Date: October 21, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION FOR RELIEF AND RECONSIDERATION

Hearing Date: 10/21/24¿

CASE NO./NAME: 23STCV16269 PHALLY YOU, et al. vs CHRISTOPHER DANTE JONES

Moving Party: Defendant Christopher Jones

Responding Party: Plaintiffs

Notice: Sufficient¿

Ruling: MOTION FOR RELIEF IS GRANTED

Background

On July 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the present complaint. On May 6, 2024, Defendant filed his answer. On the same day, Plaintiffs served Defendant with written discovery, including Requests for Admission, Set One. Responses to written discovery were due on July 24, 2024.

On July 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Deem Facts Admitted after not receiving any responses. No opposition was filed. On August 26, 2024, no party appeared at the hearing, and Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission, Set One, were deemed admitted.

Defendant now moves the Court to reconsider pursuant to CCP 1008 or vacate its prior ruling pursuant to CCP 473 because (1) among other reasons, the court was not aware of the fact that Defendant filed responses to the Requests for Admission before the Motion was heard; or (2) due to a calendaring error, Defendant failed to file an opposition or appear at the hearing on the Motion to Deem Facts Admitted. Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that the bases for reconsideration are insufficient and the basis for vacating the order falls below the professional standard for lawyers.

Legal Standard

A motion for reconsideration must be made “…within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order…” (CCP §1008(a).) The moving party must present new facts, circumstances or law in order to grant a motion for reconsideration. (See CCP § 1008(a); see also Mink v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1342.) The party seeking reconsideration of an order 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. (CCP § 1008(a).) “Facts of which a party seeking reconsideration was aware at the time of the original ruling are not "new or different facts," as would support a trial court's grant of reconsideration. (People v. Safety National Casualty Insurance Co. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 959, 974.)

Further, “…the 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 [emphasis added].) 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.)

Under CCP 473(b), a court may relieve a party from an order taken against him or her due to excusable neglect.

Discussion

On August 26, 2024, the Court Deemed Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted. The Court finds good cause to vacate its prior ruling based on excusable neglect and a fact unknown to the Court at the time of the initial motion, namely, that Defendant had responded to the RFAs prior to the date the motion to deem them admitted was heard. Defendant’s counsel submitted a declaration stating that the responses to the RFAs were served shortly after Plaintiff filed the motion. However, the motion was not calendared because counsel’s paralegal failed to download the motion to the relevant case file and did not calendar the opposition deadline or the motion hearing date, resulting in counsel’s failure to file an opposition or appear at the hearing.

Defendant also asserts that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by this error because defense counsel acted promptly and without delay to rectify their oversight regarding Plaintiff’s Motion.

Although Plaintiff filed an opposition, it does not dispute defense counsel’s declaration that Defendant provided RFA responses prior to the motion to have the RFAs deemed admitted. Furthermore, Plaintiff does not allege any prejudice resulting from the error. The Court also finds prejudice unlikely, as the motion for reconsideration/to vacate was promptly filed after the initial motion was granted, and there was insufficient time for Plaintiff to rely on the admissions. Typically, calendaring errors are excusable as long as the opposing party is not prejudiced, and relief is warranted when uncontradicted evidence in affidavits supports the request. (Segal v. S. Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 509, 512.) Both elements are present in this case; therefore, the motion is granted.

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.