Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 20STLC10061, Date: 2023-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STLC10061    Hearing Date: December 7, 2023    Dept: 26

State Farm v. Sims, et al.

VACATE DISMISSAL AND ENTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION

(CCP § 664.6)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Second Renewed Motion to Vacate Dismissal, Enforce Settlement and Enter Judgment is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendant Calvin Sims (“Defendant”) on December 2, 2020. On May 7, 2021, Plaintiff filed a copy of the parties’ settlement agreement with a request for dismissal and retention of jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.4. The Court granted the request for dismissal with retention of jurisdiction on May 12, 2021. (Order for Settlement and Dismissal, filed 05/07/21.)

Plaintiff filed the first Motion to Vacate Dismissal, Enforce Settlement and Enter Judgment on January 4, 2022. The first Motion came for hearing on March 2, 2022 and was denied by the Court. (Minute Order, 03/02/22.) Plaintiff made no appearance at the hearing. (Ibid.) Plaintiff filed a second or renewed Motion to Vacate Dismissal, Enforce Settlement and Enter Judgment on June 13, 2022. The Court denied the renewed motion on July 27, 2022. (Minute Order, 07/27/22.) Again, Plaintiff did not appear for the hearing. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff filed the instant and third Motion Vacate Dismissal, Enforce Settlement and Enter Judgment (“the Second Renewed Motion”) on September 25, 2023. 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).)

Plaintiff’s Second Renewed Motion to Enforce Settlement seeks the same relief as the previously denied two Motions to Enforce Settlement. (Notice of Second Renewed Motion, filed 09/25/23, p. 1:22-24; Notice of Second Motion, filed 06/13/22, p. 1:21-2:6; Notice of First Motion, filed 01/04/22, p. 1:21-2:6.) However, the Second Renewed Motion again fails to comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. The supporting declaration does not mention the prior order from July 27, 2022, nor demonstrate what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to exist following that order. (Second Renewed Motion, Reese Decl.) A showing of new or different facts, circumstances or law is a jurisdictional prerequisite to granting the instant Second Renewed Motion. (Kerns v. CSE Ins. Group (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 368, 391 [“the procedural prerequisites set forth for reconsideration of orders and renewal of motions previously denied are jurisdictional as applied to the actions of parties to civil litigation”].)

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].) The Second Renewed Motion also fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for Plaintiff’s lack of diligence in presenting the purportedly new or different facts to the Court. Notably, Plaintiff did not appear at either earlier hearing on March 2, 2022 or July 27, 2022, and waited more than a year after the last hearing to bring the instant Motion.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Second Renewed Motion to Vacate Dismissal, Enforce Settlement and Enter Judgment is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.