Judge: Linda S. Marks, Case: 2019-01043221, Date: 2023-07-24 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Reconsideration filed by Neil Mason on 3/7/23

Defendant Mason’s Motion for Reconsideration does not comply with CCP§1010, or CRC, Rule 3.1110(a) and therefore, the nature and basis for the grounds for relief are not apparent. To the extent this is a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s 3/6/2023 granting of the Ex-Parte Application for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Entry of Judgment pursuant to CCP§1008, the motion is taken off calendar.

The court loses jurisdiction to rule on a pending motion for reconsideration after entry of judgment. [APRI Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Schatteman) (1999) 76 CA4th 176, 181—immaterial that motion to reconsider filed before entry of judgment; Branner v. Regents of Univ. of Calif., supra, 175 CA4th at 1048, 96 CR3d at 693—“A motion to reconsider is not valid if it is filed after the final judgment is signed”] Once a judgment has been entered, the proper challenge is a motion for new trial (CCP § 657), which may be based on various grounds including errors of law. [See Ramon v. Aerospace Corp. (1996) 50 CA4th 1233, 1237-1238]

Here, while the Motion for Reconsideration was filed on 3/7/2023 (ROA 200), the Court signed the Judgment on 3/13/2023 (ROA 202)

Tentative Ruling: The Motion for Reconsideration is OFF CALENDAR since the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter