Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 22STCV32585, Date: 2024-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV32585, Date: 2024-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV32585 Hearing Date: April 16, 2024 Dept: 30

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure Section 1008(a) provides that “[w]hen 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 . . . [may] 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(a).) A trial court has discretion with respect to granting a motion for reconsideration. (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212.)

Section 1008, subdivision (e) states: “No application to reconsider any order ... may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to this section.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008(e).) “Section 1008 is the exclusive means for modifying, amending or revoking an order. That limitation is expressly jurisdictional.” (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1499.)

“A motion for reconsideration may only be brought if the party moving for reconsideration can offer ‘new or different facts, circumstances, or law which it could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the time of the prior motion. (Citations.) A motion for reconsideration will be denied absent a strong showing of diligence.” (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690; Forrest v. State Of California Dept. Of Corporations (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 183, 202 disapproved of and overruled on unrelated grounds in Shalant v. Girardi (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1164, 1172 (footnote 3); New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212–213; Baldwin v. Home Sav. of America. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1199.)

There is a strict requirement of diligence on the moving party; the moving party must present a satisfactory explanation for failing to provide the evidence or different facts earlier. (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690.)

Discussion

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Court’s March 6, 2024 ruling as to the sanctions portion of his motion to deem requests for admissions admitted. The Court granted the motion for requests for admissions, deemed the maters admitted and imposed sanctions in the amount of $560 against Defendant and counsel of record, to be paid within 20 days.

First, Plaintiff has not filed a motion or notice of motion. As a result, because there has been no notice of any relief Plaintiff seeks, the motion is denied, as granting relief would violate Defendant’s due process rights of being afforded adequate notice.

Further, CCP section 2023.040 also requires notice in the notice of motion. It states: “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.” Again, there is no notice of motion, nor is there a memorandum of points and authorities. Therefore, the motion is also denied for this independent reason.

Even setting aside notice issues, the motion for reconsideration is untimely. The order was made on March 6, 2024, and notice was provided on March 13, 2024. This “motion” was filed on April 9, 2024 more than 10 days after the ruling.

Even if this motion for reconsideration was not untimely, Defendant was ordered to pay sanctions on March 6, 2024 for failing to respond to requests for admissions; Defendant’s subsequent failure to pay the sanctions are collateral to the motion to compel those initial responses, and thus, is not a new fact or circumstance that this court may consider under CCP section 1008. (See Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500 (holding that alleged fact that party seeking reconsideration had not intended to waive oral argument did not constitute a new or different fact under Section 1008, because it was wholly collateral to the merits of the initial motion).)

Plaintiff’s recourse now would be to file a motion for monetary sanctions for violation of a court order, and not a motion for reconsideration. Lastly, as to Plaintiff’s argument regarding Dhatt’s subsequent failure to provide proper verifications as it relates to the motion to deem requests for admissions admitted only, the Court has already deemed that Dhatt admitted the requests for admissions. As a result, Dhatt does not need to verify the requests for admissions, as he has already admitted them.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.