Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 20STLC04287, Date: 2022-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STLC04287    Hearing Date: December 19, 2022    Dept: 26

State Farm v. Garcia, et al.

RENEWED MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL

(CCP §§ 187, 1008)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Renewed Motion to Vacate Dismissal is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

On May 19, 2020, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Kevin Alberto Garcia and Jorge Alberto Garcia (“Defendants”). Defendants filed an Answer on August 18, 2020. On November 19, 2020, Plaintiff dismissed Defendant Jorge Alberto Garcia from the action. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement on January 27, 2022 and the Court set an Order to Show Cause re Dismissal for April 26, 2022. When Plaintiff failed to appear for the OSC, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice. (Minute Order, 04/26/22.)

Plaintiff filed the first Motion to Vacate Dismissal on August 23, 2022, which the Court denied on September 28, 2022. (Minute Order, 09/28/22.) Plaintiff did not appear for the hearing. (Ibid.) Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Vacate Dismissal (“the Renewed Motion”) on October 4, 2022. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

When a party seeks the same relief that was previously denied, it must bring a renewed motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (b). (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.)

There is no time limit under section 1008 to renew a previous motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subds. (b), (e); Stephen v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car of San Francisco (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 806, 816.) However, a renewed motion must be supported by a 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.)

Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion seeks the same relief as the previously denied first Motion to Vacate Dismissal. (Notice of First Motion, filed 08/23/22, p. 1:21-25; Notice of Renewed Motion, filed 10/04/22, p. 1:21-25.) However, the Renewed Motion fails to comply with the aforementioned requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. The supporting declaration does not mention the prior order nor demonstrate what new or different facts, circumstances or law are claimed to exist. (Renewed Motion, Espinosa Decl.) Therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction to reconsider the prior ruling as raised by this Motion.

Conclusion

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Renewed Motion to Vacate Dismissal is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.