Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case 22NWCV00400 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00400, Date: 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00400 Hearing Date: January 31, 2023 Dept: C

WASHINGTON v. REID

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00400

HEARING: 1/31/23 @ 1:30 PM

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Reid’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

Plaintiff to give NOTICE.

Defendant Reid moves for reconsideration of this court’s January 4, 2023 Order granting summary judgment pursuant to CCP § 1008.

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. (CCP § 1008.) The legislative intent was to restrict these motions to circumstances where a party offers the court some fact or circumstance not previously considered, and some valid reason for not offering it early. (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.) The burden is comparable to that of a party seeking a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, i.e. 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.) To be entitled to reconsideration, a party must show new or different facts and a satisfactory
explanation for failing to produce such evidence earlier. (Kalivas v. Barry Controls Corp. (1996) 49 Cal. App. 4th 1152, 1160-61; Mink v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal. App. 4th 1338.)

Defendant contends that the court should reconsider its January 4, 2023 Order granting summary judgment based on “new and different facts and circumstances” and that “Plaintiff’s MSJ should never have been granted.” (Defendant’s Notice of Ex Parte filed on 1/11/23, 24: 6-9.)

Defendant initially asserts that the evidence submitted by Plaintiff was falsified. However, at the summary judgment hearing, Defendant failed to submit any verified documentary evidence in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, and failed to offer any testimonial evidence. Defendant does not provide this court with any satisfactory explanation for failing to produce the evidence earlier. (See Kalivas v. Barry Controls Corp. (1996) 49 Cal. App. 4th 1152, 1160-61; New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212-213.)

The court therefore rendered its ruling based on the evidence submitted by Plaintiff, and the lack of evidence that would create a triable issue of material fact in this unlawful detainer action. Judgment was rendered on January 4, 2023.

Defendant now alternatively argues that the determination of issues of title is not appropriate in an unlawful detainer action, citing Asuncion v. Super. Ct. (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 141; Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367, 385. However, Defendant did not alert the court to this issue prior to or at the summary judgment hearing, and has not provided this court with any satisfactory explanation why this issue was not raised sooner. (See Kalivas v. Barry Controls Corp. (1996) 49 Cal. App. 4th 1152, 1160-61; New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212-213.)

Further, unlike Asuncion and Martin-Bragg, Defendant did not file any complaint for quiet title to assert her claims of title to the property, and did not thereafter timely file any motion to consolidate or request the court to stay the unlawful detainer action. (Asuncion v. Super. Ct. (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 141 – The occupant filed a complaint alleging fraud and requesting title to the property, but the superior court retransferred the action back to the municipal court. The appellate court held that the trial court can either stay the eviction action based on the court’s authority to grant preliminary injunctions or consolidate the actions; Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367, 385 – The occupant requested to consolidate the unlawful detainer case with a pending quiet title action in which the occupant alleged that the claimant's title to the property was held in trust for the occupant's benefit.) Here, and unlike Asuncion and Martin-Bragg, Defendant raises this issue for the very first time after this court had already rendered Judgment in this matter. Therefore, the “procedural vehicles” discussed in Asuncion and Martin-Bragg are no longer available to this court. This court may not stay the action based on its authority to grant preliminary injunctions or consolidate the actions because the unlawful detainer action has already resulted in a Judgment.

Even if the court were to consider the merits of the motion for reconsideration, it would be compelled to deny it. Defendant Reid argues that Plaintiff Washington submitted false evidence to the court in support of her motion for summary judgment. Specifically, “the email submitted by Plaintiff labeled as Exhibit 2, which she alleged was from the California Secretary of State … is a falsified document.” (Declaration of Defendant, para. 4.) Exhibit 2 was offered to show that Defendant Reid forged Plaintiff Washington’s signature on a quitclaim deed. Because the quitclaim deed was not offered as evidence during the motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2 was not material to the issue. Moreover, nowhere does Defendant Reid assert that the quitclaim deed was lawfully obtained.

Defendant Reid claims that she sent her attorney her declaration and opposition a week before the hearing, but her attorney failed to alert the court of this fact. Defendant has neither provided a copy of her original declaration nor a satisfactory explanation for failing to present evidence during the motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.