Judge: Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case: 37-2022-00015103-CU-MC-CTL, Date: 2024-06-28 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 27, 2024

06/28/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Marcella O McLaughlin

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Misc Complaints - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00015103-CU-MC-CTL OCAMPO VS SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC SDGE [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Reconsideration, 02/26/2024

The motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

A. As an initial matter, the court notes that plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion. 'The court may deem a lack of opposition to be a concession that a motion is meritorious.' SDSC Local Rule 2.1.19(B). Nevertheless, because it appears that plaintiff served the opposition papers on SDG&E (see ROA 148), the court will consider the merits of the motion notwithstanding this omission. See Kapitanski v. Von's Grocery Co. (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 29, 32 ('Rigid rule following is not always consistent with a court's function to see that justice is done.'); see also Fountain Valley Chateau Blanc Homeowner's Assn. v. Department of Veterans Affairs (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 743, 758 ('The law always favors substance over form[.]').

B. SDG&E's request for judicial notice (ROA 137) is granted. Evid. Code § 452(d). 'However, while courts are free to take judicial notice of the existence of each document in a court file, including the truth of results reached, they may not take judicial notice of the truth of hearsay statements in decisions and court files.' Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 875, 882.

C. Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(a) allows a party to move for reconsideration of a prior order based on new or different facts or a change in law. 'If the motion to reconsider is based on new facts, the moving party must provide a satisfactory explanation for its failure to produce the evidence at an earlier time.' Torres v. Design Group Facility Solutions, Inc. (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 239, 243. 'The burden under section 1008 is comparable to that of a party seeking a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence: the information must be such that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced it at the trial.' New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212-13.

Here, although records regarding Case No. 2021-38623 were 'easily obtainable,' SDG&E has not provided any sort of explanation for its failure to produce the 'new' evidence at an earlier time. See id. at 213. Moreover, even if SDG&E had provided a satisfactory explanation, the new evidence would not change the court's initial ruling. See Evid. Code § 312(b) ('[T]he jury is to determine the effect and value of the evidence addressed to it, including the credibility of witnesses[.]'); see also Romero v. Los Angeles Rams (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 562, 567-68 ('Causation is ordinarily a question of fact which cannot be resolved by summary judgment.').

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3094750  28