Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV05655, Date: 2024-09-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV05655    Hearing Date: September 26, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Law Offices of Payam Y. Poursalimi v. The Williams Law Group et al

CASE NO.:                23SMCV05655

MOTION:                  Motion for Reconsideration

HEARING DATE:   9/26/2024

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 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.) 

Analysis

Defendants The Williams Law Group and Andrew Williams move for reconsideration of the Court’s May 8, 2024, ruling denying their motion to quash service of summons. However, Defendants failed to file an answer or other responsive pleading which would preclude the entry of default. Following Plaintiff’s request for entry of default, the Clerk properly entered Defendants’ default on June 10, 2024. (CCP § 585(b).) Here, the pleading’s label would not have alerted the clerk that the document was intended to be an answer or an otherwise permissible response to the complaint. Thus, the entry of default would not be void. In addition, there is no proof of service attached to the document.  Thus, the motion is DENIED.

The Court would also deny the motion on the merits. Defendants fail to present new or different matters. 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 been previously discovered and produced. (Wilcox v. Ford (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1170; see Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500 [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].) Defendants only present additional evidentiary details on the service of summons, which could have been presented at the prior hearing. Further, the additional details provided by the supplemental Williams declaration would not have changed the outcome of the motion, as Plaintiff has still shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Williams was personally served.