Judge Mark A. Young, Case Number: 23SMCV04210, Date: 2025-01-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV04210, Date: 2025-01-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV04210 Hearing Date: January 29, 2025 Dept: M

CASE NAME: Nulane Entertainment LLC, et al., v. Dre Dynasty Inc., et al.

CASE NO.: 23SMCV04210

MOTION: Motion for Reconsideration

HEARING DATE: 1/29/2025

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.)¿¿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.)¿

“No application to reconsider any order or for the renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to this section.” (CCP § 1008(e)); see Powell v. County of Orange (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1573, 1577 [“The name of a motion is not controlling, and, regardless of the name, a motion asking the trial court to decide the same matter previously ruled on is a motion for reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008.”].) Therefore, the moving party must comply with the requirements of section 1008, regardless of the title of the noticed motion.

A motion for reconsideration must be made to the same judge. (CCP § 1008(a).) “A trial court’s discretion to reconsider another judge’s prior ruling is necessarily narrow and usually only appropriate when the prior judge is unavailable.” (Marriage of Oliverez (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1247.) “[O]ne trial court judge may not reconsider and overrule a ruling by another trial court judge, unless the first judge is unavailable.” (Davcon, Inc. v. Roberts & Morgan (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1361.)

Reconsideration cannot be granted based on claims the court misinterpreted the law in its initial ruling because this is not a “new” or “different” matter.¿ (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.)

Analysis

Plaintiffs Nulane Entertainment LLC, Boss City Music LLC, and Michael R. Harris move for reconsideration of the Court’s August 28, 2024, order granting Defendant UTA and Bernhardt’s Ex Parte Application to Strike the Stipulation.

Following entry of judgment against Plaintiffs and Defendants’ dismissal, Plaintiffs filed a Stipulation on August 22, 2024. Defendants did not consent to the Stipulation. (Hardy Decl., ¶ 7.) Defendants promptly moved for ex parte relief given the language requiring payment within 72 hours. (Hardy Decl., ¶¶ 8-9.) On August 27, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a written opposition to Defendants’ ex parte application. On August 28, 2024, the Court granted Defendants’ ex parte application and struck the stipulation.

In support of the motion for reconsideration, Plaintiffs explain that they requested that the hearing on the ex parte be put over one day so counsel could appear at the hearing. Plaintiff contends that the request was disregarded and that the Court issued an OSC without details as to the basis for granting the Ex Parte. Plaintiffs contend that the ex parte lacked any cogent argument and that there was no basis in the application for striking the stipulation. Critically, Plaintiffs do not offer any new or different facts that support denial of the ex parte. Plaintiffs do not explain why a new hearing would change the result of the motion. Plaintiffs merely request that the court allow them “to be heard” on the motion. Of course, Plaintiffs were already afforded multiple opportunities to explain the basis of their opposition to the ex parte. Plaintiffs again fail to do so here, let alone show a “new” or “different” circumstance.

Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.