TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Hedge Fund, Inc.’s Motion to Vacate Void Order dated 6/1/2023 and Reconsideration of This Totally Improper Ruling Issued the Same Day that the Prior Judge in this Case “Elaine Wendy Mandel” Who Did Cover Up She Is Stock Holder for Onver [sic] One of the Bank Sued in This Case Also Issued a Frivolous Ruling Without a Hearing on 6/1/023 in Another Civil Case of Maha Visconti in This Same Courthouse is DENIED.

Plaintiff Hedge Fund, Inc.’s Motion for Reconsideration for [sic] Ruling from April 12, 2023 for Diana Hajinazrarian [sic] Entry of Default from a Motion to Quash Filed; and that Plaintiff Is to File 3rd Amended Complaint Based on Tolling of Time that the Owner [of] the Stolen Funds Is Entitled to By Matter of Law is DENIED.

Plaintiff Hedge Fund, Inc.’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order of May 10, 2023 and Order of May 12, 2023 is DENIED.

Plaintiff Hedge Fund, Inc.’s Motion to Vacate Void Order Dated April 12, 2023 Regarding 2 Motions for Reconsiderations [sic] that Were Never Scheduled with the Court by Plaintiff is DENIED.

Defendant Citibank, N.A. to give notice. 

REASONING

Plaintiff Hedge Fund, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) moves the Court to vacate and/or reconsider its April 12, May 10, and June 1, 2023, orders. The April 12, 2023 order denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Diana Hajinazarian’s attendance at a schedule deposition and to produce certain identified documents; granted Hajinazarian’s motion for an order setting aside the default entered against her and quashing the service of summons and complaint; denied Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint; and denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order setting aside default and quashing service of summons and denying a motion to file a Third Amended Complaint. The May 10, 2023 order granted Defendant Citibank, N.A. (“Citibank”)’s motion for summary judgment and denied Citibank’s motions for leave to file an amended answer and to sever or bifurcate trial as moot. The June 1, 2023 order granted Citibank’s motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in Citibank’s favor against Plaintiff on all causes of action; this order was an entry of judgment order in line with the Court’s May 10, 2023, order.

Plaintiff’s motion papers are unintelligible and confusing; it is not clear to the Court what relief Plaintiff seeks other than the Court vacating its prior orders. Plaintiff appears to argue that the action was pending in federal court when the Court issued its order granting Citibank’s motion for summary judgment, but the case was not removed until May 18, 2023, after the Court issued its initial order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and the action was remanded two days prior to the Court signing the entry of judgment, with the remand occurring on May 30, 2023. Insofar as Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the orders, Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (a), allows a Court to reconsider a prior order as follows:

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.

Put simply, Plaintiff has failed to set forth any new or different facts, circumstances, or law to warrant reconsidering the prior orders, and the motions are untimely because they were not filed within 10 days of issuance of the order at issue. Plaintiff’s arguments in the motions are also incoherent and do not provide the Court with any basis to determine relief may be granted here. Further, insofar as Plaintiff takes issue with motions that were never scheduled, the Court lacks a basis to reconsider or vacate an order that was never issued.

Accordingly, Plaintiff Hedge Fund, Inc.’s Motion to Vacate Void Order dated 6/1/2023 and Reconsideration of This Totally Improper Ruling Issued the Same Day that the Prior Judge in this Case “Elaine Wendy Mandel” Who Did Cover Up She Is Stock Holder for Onver [sic] One of the Bank Sued in This Case Also Issued a Frivolous Ruling Without a Hearing on 6/1/023 in Another Civil Case of Maha Visconti in This Same Courthouse is DENIED, Plaintiff Hedge Fund, Inc.’s Motion for Reconsideration for [sic] Ruling from April 12, 2023 for Diana Hajinazrarian [sic] Entry of Default from a Motion to Quash Filed; and that Plaintiff Is to File 3rd Amended Complaint Based on Tolling of Time that the Owner [of] the Stolen Funds Is Entitled to By Matter of Law is DENIED, Plaintiff Hedge Fund, Inc.’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order of May 10, 2023 and Order of May 12, 2023 is DENIED, and Plaintiff Hedge Fund, Inc.’s Motion to Vacate Void Order Dated April 12, 2023 Regarding 2 Motions for Reconsiderations [sic] that Were Never Scheduled with the Court by Plaintiff is DENIED.