Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV00048, Date: 2025-06-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00048    Hearing Date: June 11, 2025    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On January 3, 2023, Plaintiff Ruby Hunter as conservator for Estate of Arther Kazuo Masaoka (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants John Gancy, Los Angeles Unified School District, and Does 1-60 for intentional tort. 

On October 3, 2024, the Court set an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to File Proof of Service for February 3, 2025 and warned: “The Court may exercise its discretion to dismiss the case for failure to file proof of service within two years of the initial filing date pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 581(g), 583.410, and 583.420(a)(1) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.110(f).” 

On February 3, 2025, Plaintiff failed to appear.  The Court dismissed the action without prejudice under Code of Civil Procedure sections 581, subdivision (g), 583.410 and 583.420, subdivision (a)(1), and California Rules of Court, rule 3.110(f). 

On February 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the dismissal.  The motion was set for hearing on April 24, 2025.  The Court continued the hearing to June 11, 2025. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its February 3, 2025 order dismissing the case. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (a), provides: 

“(a)    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.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a).) 

The party moving for reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (a), “must provide a satisfactory explanation for failing to present the information at the first hearing; i.e., a showing of reasonable diligence.”  (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2024) ¶ 9:329, p. 9(l)-162.) 

DISCUSSION 

Citing medical problems and difficulty finding new counsel, Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its February 3, 2025 order dismissing the case.  

The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion because Plaintiff has not shown that she has made any efforts to serve the summons and complaint or file the proof of service, and Plaintiff does not state that she plans to do so. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration of the February 3, 2025 order dismissing the case without prejudice filed by Plaintiff Ruby Hunter as conservator for Estate of Arther Kazuo Masaoka. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.