Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: LAM08K03511, Date: 2023-11-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: LAM08K03511    Hearing Date: November 30, 2023    Dept: 26

3 C’s Group Financial, Inc. v. Perets, et al.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(CCP § 1008)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Judgment Debtor Al Peret’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

This action was originally filed on July 11, 1996 by Judgment Creditor 3 C’s Group Financial, Inc. (“Judgment Creditor”) and against Judgment Debtor Al Perets (“Judgment Debtor”) and others. Judgment was entered in Judgment Creditor’s favor and against Judgment Debtor on February 26, 1998. The judgment was renewed on February 1, 2008 and August 30, 2017.

On February 22, 2023, Judgment Creditor filed an Application and Order for Appearance and Examination, which was set for May 9, 2023. (Application and Order, filed 02/22/23.) Judgment Debtor did not appear on May 9, 2023 but was represented by counsel and the Court granted Judgment Creditor’s request to issue and hold a bench warrant. (Minute Order, 05/09/23.) The hearing was continued to August 2, 2023 and Judgment Debtor was ordered to appear on that date. (Ibid.)

Judgment Debtor filed a declaration in response to the Order to Appear on July 31, 2023. At the hearing on August 2, 2023, the Court acknowledged reading the declaration and ordered the bench warrant held until September 6, 2023. (Minute Order, 08/02/23.) On September 6, 2023, Judgment Debtor filed declarations but did not appear. (Minute Order, 09/06/23.) At Judgment Creditor’s request, the bench warrant was issued and bail was set at $5,000.00. (Ibid.) 

Judgment Debtor filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration of the September 6, 2023 order on September 20, 2023. Judgment Creditor filed an opposition on November 14, 2023 and Judgment Debtor replied on November 22, 2023.  

Discussion

The Motion for Reconsideration is sought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (a), which states in relevant part:

When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a).) 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].)

Judgment Debtor has not shown that new or different facts support the instant Motion. First, the Motion relies on the declarations filed on September 6, 2023, of which the Court was informed by Judgment Debtor’s counsel at the hearing. (Minute Order, 09/06/23.) The declarations reiterate the contents of Judgment Debtor’s August 31, 2023 declaration regarding his poor health and therefore, provide no new or different information. (See Perets Decl., filed 08/31/23.) Even if the declarations constitute new and different information, Judgment Debtor fails to explain why they were not filed prior to the morning of September 6, 2023. (Motion, Perets Decl., ¶2.) In fact, the declaration of Karman Kalpari, MD, is dated August 23, 2023. (Kalpari Decl., filed 09/06/23, p. 3.) Judgment Debtor has been aware of the September 6, 2023 examination since August 2, 2023. Yet no explanation is provided for Judgment Debtor’s lack of diligence in presenting these declarations in either the Motion nor Reply.

Finally, to the extent Judgment Debtor contends that the filing of a separate action to challenge the underlying judgment is grounds to waive his appearance at the judgment debtor examination or recall the warrant in this action, no authority is provided. (Motion, p. 4:8-14; Perets Decl., ¶4.)

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Judgment Debtor Al Peret’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.