Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV36561, Date: 2023-09-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV36561    Hearing Date: December 13, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: December 13, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Reconsideration

Moving Party: Plaintiff Saul Larner

Responding Party: Defendants Christopher Sorley and Michele Dobson

T/R:     PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IS DENIED.

PLAINTIFF 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 and oppositions.

BACKGROUND

On November 21, 2022, Plaintiff Saul Larner sued Defendants Christopher Sorley and Michele A. Dobson, asserting a cause of action for malicious prosecution and SLAPP-back. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, who were counsel for the defendants in related case 22STCV12097, maliciously brought anti-SLAPP motions in the related case. The Court denied the motions on October 25, 2022.

On July 7, 2023, the Court sustained Defendant Sorley’s demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend.

On September 18, 2023, the Court granted Defendant Dobson’s motion for terminating sanctions.

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.)

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Court’s September 18, 2023 order granting monetary and terminating sanctions against Plaintiff. The Court found that Plaintiff’s maintenance of the instant action was frivolous, based on clear statutory provisions contradicting Plaintiff’s claims for relief. Plaintiff argues the order should be reconsidered because Plaintiff did not act in bad faith.

The Court already has rejected Plaintiff’s arguments in its September 18, 2023 order. Plaintiff does not provide any new or different facts, circumstances, or law to support reconsideration. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.