Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 19STLC10122, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STLC10122    Hearing Date: April 27, 2023    Dept: 26

McGuiness v. Lan, et al.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(CCP § 1008(e))

TENTATIVE RULING: 

Defendant Yunlan Lan’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Tara McGuiness (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of attorney-client retainer agreement against Defendant Yunlan Lan (“Defendant”) on November 1, 2019. The court entered default against Defendant on March 9, 2020 and default judgment on June 30, 2020. Defendant filed a Motion to Vacate Default on June 19, 2020. The Motion to Vacate initially came for hearing on August 11, 2020. At that time, the Court continued the hearing and ordered Defendant to file and serve supplemental papers setting forth the legal basis of the request to vacate the default and judgment. (Minute Order, 8/11/20.) Defendant filed a supplemental brief on September 28, 2020. Plaintiff filed an opposition on October 13, 2020. At the continued hearing date on October 21, 2020, the Court found that Defendant had not demonstrated that they were taken by surprise by the entry of default and default judgment. (Minute Order, 10/21/20.)

Defendant then filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration on October 30, 2020. For reasons unknown, the Motion for Reconsideration was not heard on the original hearing date of June 3, 2021. The Motion for Reconsideration was then re-set for hearing on April 27, 2023. Plaintiff filed an opposition on April 19, 2023.

Discussion

The Motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 but does not show compliance with the statutory requirements. Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (b) relates to a “renewed motion” whereby a party seeks the same relief that was previously denied. (California Correctional Peace Officers Ass'n v. Virga (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 30, 43, fn. 11; see also Tate v. Wilburn (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 150, 156-157.)  When a motion has been denied in whole or in part, the moving party may apply again for the same relief at a later time only upon “new or different facts, circumstances or law.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (b); see Graham v. Hansen (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 965, 969-970.) The motion must be supported by declaration showing the previous order, by which judge it was made, and what new or different facts, circumstances or law are claimed to exist. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (b).)

The Court lacks the jurisdiction to reconsider a prior ruling, on motion of a party, where the motion does not comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (e); Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1106.) The purpose of this jurisdictional bar is to protect the Court from repetitive motions. (Ibid.) Also, the statute requires the moving party “to show a satisfactory explanation for failing to provide the evidence earlier, which can only be described as a strict requirement of diligence” the purpose of which is to incentivize parties “to efficiently marshall their evidence.” (Baldwin v. Home Sav. of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1199 [citing Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 689-690].)

Here, Defendant offers no new facts, law, or circumstances and instead argues that they did not understand what was required by the Court ruling on August 11, 2020 with respect to the filings required regarding the proof of service. (Motion, p. 2:20-24.) Defendant also asks the Court to consider their unemployment status and limited legal knowledge. (Ibid.) None of these facts, however, are appropriate to raise on a motion for reconsideration because they are not new and could have been raised at oral argument at the hearing on October 21, 2020. Defendant does not explain why this information was not presented in support of the first motion to vacate.

Conclusion

Therefore, Defendant Yunlan Lan’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.