Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 21STCV06887, Date: 2024-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV06887    Hearing Date: August 21, 2024    Dept: 45

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

 

FRANCISCO QUIROZ,

 

                             Plaintiff,

 

                              vs.

RODEO REALTY INC., AMBER RAQUEL MARTINEZ

 

                              Defendants.
Case No.:  21STCV06887

DEPARTMENT 45

 

 

 

[TENTATIVE] RULING

 

 

 

Action Filed: 02/22/2021 

[1st Amended Complaint Filed: N/A]

Trial Date: None Set 

 

Hearing Date:             August 21, 2024

Moving Party:             Defendant Amber Martinez

Responding Party:      N/A - Unopposed

Motion:                      Motion for Reconsideration

Tentative Ruling: The Court considered the moving papers. The motion is DENIED.

 

Background

            Francisco Quiroz (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint on February 22, 2021 against Rodeo Realty, Inc. (Rodeo) and Amber Raquel Martinez (Martinez, collectively Defendants). Plaintiff alleged two causes of action: (1) breach of contract and (2) fraud after Martinez allegedly borrowed $30,000.00 and promised to repay within six months but failed to do so. (Compl., ¶BC-1.)

            Rodeo was dismissed on June 2, 2021. Default and then default judgment was entered against Martinez on August 5, 2022 and March 24, 2023 respectively. On May 18, 2023, Martinez filed a motion to set aside the default and default judgment. On October 9, 2023, this Court denied that motion. The motion now before the Court is Martinez’s Motion to Reconsider (the Motion) filed under Code Civ. Proc. §1008. No opposition was filed.             

Discussion

Legal Standard

A court has inherent power to reconsider, on its own motion, outside of the limitations of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1008,  “[b]ut a party may not file a written motion to reconsider that has procedural significance if it does not satisfy the requirements of section 437c, subdivision (f)(2), or 1008.” (Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1108.)

Code Civ. Proc. §1008(a) provides: “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.”

 

Analysis

            Martinez bases the instant Motion on the same arguments as her previous motion to vacate default and default judgment. However, the standard here is different, under Code Civ. Proc. §1008, the Court may consider the Motion only if the movant presents new or different facts, circumstances, or law. Additionally, the moving party must include an affidavit and file it concurrently with the Motion. Here, Martinez failed to do either.

            With regard to Martinez’s arguments, the Court will not revisit them here as they are adequately addressed in the Court’s prior ruling on the motion to vacate default and default judgment on October 9, 2023.    

Conclusion

            Accordingly, Amber Martinez’s Motion to Reconsider is DENIED.

           

 

 

 

It is so ordered.

 

Dated: August 21, 2024

 

_______________________

MEL RED RECANA

Judge of the Superior Court