Judge Matthew C. Braner, Case 37-2022-00050638-CU-WM-CTL 2023-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2022-00050638-CU-WM-CTL, Date: 2023-09-08 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 07, 2023

09/08/2023 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 Writ of Mandate Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00050638-CU-WM-CTL VANDERFORD VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD CUIAB [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Petitioner Kenneth Vanderford's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 'governs reconsideration of court orders whether initiated by a party or the court itself. 'It is the exclusive means for modifying, amending or revoking an order. That limitation is expressly jurisdictional.'' (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1499 (quoting Morite of Cal. v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 485, 490.) Reconsideration may be granted based only 'upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law,' and an application for reconsideration '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).) This requirement is not satisfied where the movant contends the court misinterpreted the law, but otherwise relies on the same legal basis as relied upon for the original motion. (Gilberd v. AC Transit, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 1500.) A 'new' or 'different' fact or circumstance that is 'wholly collateral to the merits of the initial motion,' such as unintended waiver of oral argument, is not sufficient to warrant reconsideration. (Id.) In addition, the 'party seeking reconsideration must provide not just new evidence or different facts, but a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce it at an earlier time.' (Glade v. Glade (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1457.) Here, Petitioner claims the court acted with bias and 'cherry picked' factual allegations from his petition when it sustained third-party CorVel Corporation's demurrer to the petition. Petitioner further argues that the 'complete' administrative record was not provided to him until after CorVel filed its demurrer and that such record constitutes 'new or different' facts for purposes of reconsideration.

Petitioner's arguments lack merit. First, Petitioner is primarily arguing that the court misinterpreted the law and the facts when it sustained CorVel's demurrer, which is not a suitable ground for seeking reconsideration. (See Gilberd v. AC Transit, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 1500.) Second, even if the court accepts Petitioner's argument that service of the complete administrative record constitutes a 'new' or 'different' circumstance-which is tenuous at best, considering that a demurrer is not a fact-based motion-he failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for why this point was not raised in connection with his opposition to the demurrer. (Glade v. Glade, supra, 38 Cal.App.4th at p. 1457.) In sum, Petitioner has not presented the court with 'new or different facts, circumstances, or law' that might warrant reconsideration of its order sustaining CorVel's demurrer without leave to amend.

Accordingly, Petitioner's motion for reconsideration is denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3004723 28