Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 19SMCV01902, Date: 2022-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19SMCV01902    Hearing Date: December 8, 2022    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co., v. Salice Design LLC

CASE NO.:                19SMCV01902 

MOTION:                  Motion for Reconsideration  

HEARING DATE:   12/8/2022

Legal Standard

A non-prevailing party may make a motion to reconsider and enter a different order under the following conditions: (1) brought before the same judge that made the order sought to be reconsidered; (2) made within 10 days after service upon the party of the notice of entry of the order (extended under CCP § 1013 for type of service); (3) based on new or different facts, circumstances or law than those before the court at the time of the original ruling; (4) supported by a declaration stating the previous order, by which judge it was made, and the new or different facts, circumstances or law claimed to exist; and (5) the motion must be made and decided before entry of judgment. (CCP § 1008.)

The legislature intended to restrict motions for reconsideration to circumstances where a party offers the court some fact or circumstance not previously considered and some valid reason for not offering it earlier. (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500 [misinterpretation of the law is not a new or different matter].)  Thus, “[t]o be entitled to reconsideration, a party should show that (1) evidence of new or different facts exist, and (2) the party has a satisfactory explanation for failing to produce such evidence at an earlier time.” (Mink v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1342.) The moving party must demonstrate that such newly discovered evidence could not, with reasonable diligence, have previously discovered and produced. (Wilcox v. Ford (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1170.)

The court may also reconsider its prior interim orders on its own motion to correct its own errors. (Le Francoise v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1107-09.) 

Analysis

On July 29, 2022, pursuant to an Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions, the Court sanctioned Judgment Debtor (JD) Salice’s counsel Charles Fonarow in the sum of $2,500.00. (CCP § 128.5.)

On August 8, 2022, JD moved for reconsideration of the sanctions order. JD’s Counsel claims that he was sanctioned for his non-appearance. Counsel offers technical problems during the hearing prevented him from making an appearance. (See Fonarow Decl., ¶ 3.) Counsel reasons that sanctions should therefore be withdrawn. However, as observed in the opposition, JD failed to appear at two duly noticed debtor exams despite the fact that he and counsel received notice of the date of the continued debtor examination. Even if the court accepts that counsel failed to appear due to technical difficulties, JD offers no new or different facts that would affect the reasoning of the sanctions. For instance, JD does not proffer any facts that would justify his non-appearance at the actual debtor examination. Therefore, the motion is not founded on any relevant new or different facts and JD’s motion is DENIED.