Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 24SMCV01613, Date: 2024-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV01613    Hearing Date: October 3, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           CLPF Crescent Park LP v. Emerald

CASE NO.:                24SMCV01613

MOTION:                  Motion for Reconsideration

HEARING DATE:   10/3/2024

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 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

Defendant Shelby Emerald moves for reconsideration of the Court’s September 13, 2024, denial of Defendant’s ex parte application for a stay of execution of judgment and for an order shortening time for service and hearing on a motion to set aside the judgment. The Court denied the ex parte application, noting that Defendant had not filed a motion to set aside the judgment which could be advanced and heard. As such, there was no grounds to stay or set aside the judgment.

Defendant argues that the Court should set aside the judgment because of Defendant’s disability and excusable neglect in not appearing in person as ordered. Defendant cites no new or different facts to support her ex parte application, or her request to vacate the judgment. Defendant only presents information which was or could have been presented at the prior hearing or trial. (See Emerald Decl., ¶¶ 4-15.) Since there are no new or different law or circumstances which would require a different ruling on

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.