Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2021-00015272-CU-BT-CTL, Date: 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 12, 2023

10/13/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Business Tort Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00015272-CU-BT-CTL IRTH COMMUNICATIONS LLC VS HANSEN [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiff Irth Communications, LLC's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this court's July 19, 2023 order sustaining Defendants John Hansen and Gregory Hanson's demurrer without leave to amend. (ROA #197.) Although Plaintiff quickly moved for reconsideration on July 27, 2023, this court inadvertently signed and entered final judgment on August 7, 2023, before Plaintiff's motion could be heard. Nonetheless, because final judgment has been entered, the court now lacks authority to consider Plaintiff's motion. (See Betz v. Pankow (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 931, 937 ['[A] motion for reconsideration may only be considered before final judgment is entered and while the case is still pending in the trial court.']; see also Safeco Ins. Co. v. Architectural Facades Unlimited, Inc. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1477, 1482 ['It is well settled that entry of judgment divests the trial court of authority to rule on a motion for reconsideration.'].) Although the court cannot grant Plaintiff's motion, it has considered on its own whether it should have factored in tolling under Emergency Rule 9 with respect to its decision on Defendants' demurrer. After the hearing on Defendants' demurrer, the court was persuaded that Plaintiff had inquiry notice as of November 26, 2017, which triggered accrual of the statute of limitations and expiration on November 26, 2020. Plaintiff filed this case on April 7, 2021; if the tolling from Emergency Rule 9 is taken into account, Plaintiff had until May 2021 to file its case, meaning it filed timely. Thus, had judgment not been entered inadvertently, the court would have exercised its authority to reconsider its decision and likely would have overruled the demurrer, as it had been inclined to do prior to the hearing. (ROA #185.) The court also notes that it intends to treat Plaintiff's motion to vacate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 475 and 663 (set for hearing on October 27, 2023) as a motion to vacate under section 473, subdivision (d).

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3029514  12