Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case 22NWCV00027 2023-03-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00027, Date: 2023-03-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00027 Hearing Date: March 1, 2023 Dept: C

QUINTERO v. JIMENEZ

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00027

HEARING: 03/01/23

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant HILDA M. QUINTERO’s Motion to Set Aside Motion to Compel and Order for Sanctions Pursuant to CCP §473 is DENIED.

Opposing Party to give Notice.

“When an application for an order has been made to a judge… 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.” (CCP §1008(a).) A Motion for Reconsideration constitutes the exclusive means for a party seeking modification, amendment, or revocation of an order. (See Morite of Calif. v. Sup. Ct. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1485, 490.) A party seeking reconsideration of an order based on “new evidence” must present “a satisfactory explanation for failing to provide the evidence earlier, which can only be described as a strict requirement of diligence.” (See Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690.)

Defendants’ Motion to Compel the Deposition of Hilda M. Quintero and for Monetary Sanctions was heard and granted on October 13, 2022. There was no appearance by the Plaintiffs. In his declaration, Francisco Quintero (Hilda Quintero’s husband) states that neither he nor his wife received a copy of the motion, but they did receive a copy of the October 13 order in late October 2022. On or about November 10, 2022, Francisco Quintero contacted Defendants’ counsel and informed him that he is working on hiring an attorney. Although Plaintiff Hilda Quintero does not seek reconsideration of the Court’s October 13, 2022 Order, this Court notes that such request would ultimately be denied for the following reasons: (1) such a request would be untimely under CCP §1008(a); and (2) Plaintiff fails to demonstrate any new or different facts, circumstances, or law that could not have been submitted in time for the hearing on October 13, 2022.

The Motion is DENIED.