Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: LAM10CM0823, Date: 2023-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: LAM10CM0823    Hearing Date: December 5, 2023    Dept: 26

State Farm v. Martel, et al.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(CCP § 1008)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Eder Albert Martel and Guadalupe Clemente Ramirez’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

On March 24, 2010, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against Defendants Eder Albert Martel aka Eder Albert Martel Clemente (“Defendant Martel”) and Guadalupe Clemente Ramirez (“Defendant Ramirez”). Judgment was entered against both Defendants on October 3, 2011.

On February 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Acknowledgment of Full Satisfaction of Judgment as to Defendant Martel. Plaintiff then renewed the judgment as to both Defendants on September 15, 2021.

Plaintiff filed the first Motion to Amend Renewed Judgment on November 2, 2021, which was denied without prejudice on February 9, 2022. (Minute Order, 02/09/22.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s second Motion to Amend Renewed Judgment on September 13, 2023.

Defendants filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration on September 21, 2023. Plaintiff filed an opposition on November 17, 2023.

Discussion

The Motion for Reconsideration’s notice states that relief 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].)

Defendants’ supporting memorandum, however, provides no analysis under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. Nor is the Motion supported by a declaration showing what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. Instead, it relies on Code of Civil Procedure section 473. (Motion, pp. 4:24-6:8.) Code of Civil Procedure section 473 provides no basis for the Court to reconsider its prior rulings. Therefore, Defendants have not shown they are entitled to relief under either Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 or 473.

Conclusion

Defendants Eder Albert Martel and Guadalupe Clemente Ramirez’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.