Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC05983, Date: 2024-02-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC05983    Hearing Date: March 25, 2024    Dept: 26

Banda. v. Vernis, et al.

VACATE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(CCP § 473(b))

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Lloyd Vernis’ Renewed Motion to Vacate Default and Default Judgment is DENIED. Plaintiff Antonio E. Banda’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

On September 14, 2022, Plaintiff Antonio E. Banda, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against Defendant Lloyd Vernis (“Defendant”). Following Defendant’s failure to file a responsive pleading, the Court entered default on November 1, 2022 and default judgment on January 4, 2023.

Defendant filed the first Motion to Vacate Default and Default Judgment on January 12, 2024. Plaintiff filed an opposition on January 26, 2024. On February 8, 2024, the Court denied the first Motion to Vacate. (Minute Order, 02/08/24.) Defendant filed the instant Renewed Motion to Vacate Default and Default Judgment (“the Renewed Motion”) on February 21, 2024. Plaintiff filed an opposition on March 13, 2024.

Discussion

As with the first Motion, Defendant again moves to vacate the entry of default and default judgment. (Notice, p. 1:19-26.) 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.)

Despite being a renewed motion, Defendant has not filed a supporting declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. 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].) Therefore, the Court lacks the jurisdiction to reconsider its prior ruling pursuant to Defendant’s Renewed Motion.

In opposition, Plaintiff requests an award of attorney’s fees and costs as sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), which provides that relief may be granted upon “any terms as may be just.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) As relief is not granted to Defendant, the request for sanctions is denied.

Conclusion

Defendant Lloyd Vernis’ Renewed Motion to Vacate Default and Default Judgment is DENIED. Plaintiff Antonio E. Banda’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.