Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: SS027334, Date: 2022-07-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: SS027334    Hearing Date: July 29, 2022    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Mireles, et al., v. Axiall Corp., et al.

CASE NO.:                SS027334

MOTION:                  Motion for Reconsideration

HEARING DATE:   7/29/2022

 

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 Code of Civil Procedure § 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 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

 

The Court declines to reconsider Defendant R.R. Street’s (Street) motion for summary judgment against Plaintiff Meitsu Mireles. In their motion, Plaintiffs argue that the notice was insufficient to support summary judgment against her claim. Upon review of the notice, the Court disagrees. (See Metzger Decl., Ex. C.) It was unnecessary for Street to target the loss of consortium claim with the summary adjudication motion. Street specifically noticed that it was moving for summary judgment against Plaintiffs. Plaintiff Meitsu Lisa Mireles only brought a single claim against Street, which was a loss of consortium claim. Thus, Street’s request for summary judgment against Mrs. Mireles could only pertain to the loss of consortium claim.

 

Moreover, the specific facts pled within the notice do not limit the scope of the summary judgment motion. (CRC Rule 3.1350(b); Sequoia Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1472, 1478 [for a summary adjudication motion, the notice must identify the causes of action or defenses to which the motion is directed, but it is not necessary to identify specific facts or issues within a claim or defense].) For summary judgment, the notice of motion must state the party in whose favor and against whom the judgment is sought. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(a); Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 10-C, 10:85.) Anything else is superfluous.

 

To be sure, summary judgment is proper if the evidence in support of the moving party would be sufficient to sustain judgment in their favor and the opposing party has not presented any facts which give rise to a triable issue of material fact. (Kallen v. Delug (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 940.)  As held in the initial ruling, Street demonstrated that judgment was appropriate against Mrs. Mireles’s entire case as the loss of consortium claim fails as a matter of law. Thus, the Moving Defendants’ notice of summary judgment properly supports the motion.

 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED.