Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC02672, Date: 2022-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC02672    Hearing Date: September 1, 2022    Dept: 26

PROCEEDINGS:     (1) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; and

                                    (2) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COURT RULINGS ON MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Xiaofu Zhang

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

(CCP § 1008(e))

TENTATIVE RULING: 

Plaintiff Xiaofu Zhang’s (1) Motion for Reconsideration of Motion for Summary Judgment; and (2) Motion for Reconsideration of Court Rulings on Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted are DENIED.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 15/20 Day Lapse (CCP 12c and 1005 (b)) OK

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT: Action for dental malpractice.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF: Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider its orders granting Defendant’s discovery motions and denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff did not realize the amount of time need to obtain discovery and was afraid to provide responses to defense counsel, who might manipulate the evidence.

OPPOSITION: Plaintiff’s baseless motions for reconsideration are brought without any reference to fact or law to support the relief requested.

REPLY: None filed as of August 29, 2022. 

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Xiaofu Zhang (“Plaintiff”), in pro per, filed the instant action for dental malpractice against Defendants Ravinder Steven Singh, DDS (“Defendant Singh”) and Singh Dental Corporation dba Long Beach Total Dental Care (erroneously sued as Long Beach Total Dental Care) (“Defendant Singh Dental”) (collectively, Defendants”) on April 5, 2021. Defendants filed an Answer to the Complaint on October 12, 2021.

On April 4, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Minute Order, 04/04/22.) Thereafter, on April 7 and 11, 2022, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted and Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, respectively. (Minute Orders, 04/07/22 and 04/11/22.)

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration of the Motion for Summary Judgment on April 13, 2022. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration of the Discovery Motions on April 27, 2022. Defendants filed oppositions on August 19, 2022.

Discussion

First, it is not clear on what grounds the Motions are brought. The Motions broadly cites to “CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - CCP PART 2. OF CIVIL ACTIONS [307 - 1062.20] (Part 2 enacted 1872.) TITLE 14. OF MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS [989 - 1062.20] (Title 14 enacted 1872.)” (Motion, p. 2:43-45.) No specific statutory provision is cited or quoted that gives the Court authority to reconsider its prior orders. In fact, although titled a “Motion for Reconsideration of the Motion for Summary Judgment,” it appears that Plaintiff is asking the Court to vacate its April 4, 2022 ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment to allow more time for the filing of a second Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff also moves the Court to reconsider its ruling on two separate discovery motions granted in favor of Defendants.

Both requests are made on the grounds that Plaintiff, in pro per, lacked the necessary time, knowledge and expertise to address the Motion for Summary Judgment and discovery Motions adequately. (Motions, pp. 2-3.) However, a party [in pro per] is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys.” (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1247.) The Court finds that granting the Motions for Reconsideration without any other basis than that Plaintiff is self-represented and was, as a result, unprepared for the Motion for Summary Judgment and discovery Motion would be improper. In essence, Plaintiff is seeking to re-do a significant portion of the litigation of this action. Such an order should not be made upon insufficient legal authority and factual basis, to Defendants’ prejudice.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Xiaofu Zhang’s (1) Motion for Reconsideration of Motion for Summary Judgment; and (2) Motion for Reconsideration of Court Rulings on Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted are DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.