Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV12913, Date: 2023-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV12913    Hearing Date: January 17, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: January 17, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Reconsideration

Moving Party: Cross-Complainant Gloria Resurreccion

Responding Party: Cross-Defendant Edgardo M. Lopez

T/R:    CROSS-COMPLAINANT’S MOTION TO RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED.

            CROSS-COMPLAINANT TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

            The Court considers the moving papers.[1]

BACKGROUND

On April 18, 2022, Plaintiffs Trinity Foliente and Filipino American Community of Los Angeles, Inc. filed a complaint against Defendants Gloria Resurreccion, Francisco Rongavilla, Al Capati and Mar De Vera, asserting causes of action for (1) removal of directors under Corp. Code § 5223; (2) declaratory relief; (3) UCL violations; and (4) injunctive relief. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are minority board members on the FACLA board. Plaintiffs allege they have engaged in various forms of misconduct, including sexual harassment, an attempt to change signatories on FACLA bank accounts; and stealing FACLA funds.

On May 20, 2022, Gloria Resurreccion filed a cross-complaint against Foliente, FACLA and Edgardo M. Lopez, asserting causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, removal of directors, and violations of CA State Bar rules. Resurreccion alleges Foliente has mismangaged FACLA and embezzled money. Resurreccion alleges Lopez has violated state bar rules by “defending” Foliente in a board meeting.

            On September 16, 2022, the Court granted Cross-Defendant Lopez’s anti-SLAPP motion.

ANALYSIS

A non-prevailing party may make a motion to reconsider and enter a different order under the following conditions: (1) brought before the same judge that make the order sought to be reconsidered; (2) made within 10 days after service upon the party of the notice of entry of the order; (3) based on new or different facts, circumstances or law than those before the court at the time of the original ruling; (4) supported by a declaration stating the previous order, by which judge it was made, and the new or different facts, circumstances or law claimed to exist; and (5) the motion must be made and decided before entry of judgment.  (CCP § 1008.) 

Cross-Complainant Gloria Resurreccion moves for reconsideration of the Court’s September 16, 2022 order granting Cross-Defendant Lopez’s anti-SLAPP motion. Cross-Complainant asserts the order should be reconsidered because there should be a requirement to meet and confer before filing an anti-SLAPP, the Court selectively cited to Cross-Defendant’s evidence, Cross-Defendant’s activity was not protected, and Plaintiff established a probability of success on the merits.

As stated, CCP § 1008 requires the moving party to present new or different facts, circumstances, or law than those before the Court at the time of the original ruling. Cross-Complainant does not identify any new or different facts, circumstances, or law. Disagreeing with the Court’s ruling is not grounds for reconsideration.

Cross-Complainant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.