Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

SAMUEL ARROYO;

Plaintiff,

vs.

D.C. AND ASSOCIATES, INC., et al.;

Defendants.

Case No.: 22STCV21596

DEPARTMENT 45

[TENTATIVE] RULING

Action Filed: 07/01/22

Dismissed: 04/09/24

Hearing Date: June 11, 2024

Moving Party: Plaintiff Samuel Arroyo

Responding Party: Defendant D.C. and Associates, Inc.

Motion for Reconsideration

The court has considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

The court DENIES the motion.

Background

On July 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint regarding breach of the lease agreement and negligence at his residence.

Defendant answered Plaintiff’s complaint on September 14, 2023.

On May 19, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel informed the Court that he was still trying to figure out how to proceed with the case due to the fact that Defendant is now deceased.

After multiple status conferences and Order Show Causes re: Dismissal on Account of Dissolution of Corporate Defendant, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice on April 9, 2024.

On April 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for reconsideration. On May 30, 2024, Defendant opposed. On June 5, 2024, Plaintiff replied.

Legal Standard

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 or court that made the order sought to be reconsidered; (2) made within 10 days after service upon the party of the notice of entry of the order (extended under CCP § 1013 for type of service); (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. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008.) “To be entitled to reconsideration, a party should show that (1) evidence of new or different facts exist, and (2) the party has a satisfactory explanation for failing to produce such evidence at an earlier time.” (Mink v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1342.)

Discussion

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the April 9, 2024 ruling dismissing the action, which was served on him on April 16, 2024. The Court dismissed the action after multiple status conferences and Order Show Causes re: Dismissal on Account of Dissolution of Corporate Defendant. Defendant is dissolved and its sole shareholder died in 2021. Plaintiff argues that the Court would not listen to Plaintiff’s counsel’s oral argument and Plaintiff was unable to file a written opposition to dismissal due to the sudden determination by the Court. Plaintiff represents that Civil Code § 416.20 and Corporate Code 2011(a)(1)(A) both state that Plaintiff may proceed against a dissolved corporation for remaining assets and insurance policies in effect prior to the corporation’s dissolution. Plaintiff is seeking a declaration from Defendant stating that there are no remaining assets and there was no insurance policy. Defendant’s counsel has stated via email that there is no insurance policy.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not presented any new or different facts, circumstances, or law. From the minute orders in this case, it is clear that Plaintiff’s counsel was communicating with the Court as to how to proceed with this case in light of Defendant’s dissolved status and deceased sole shareholder. Plaintiff’s counsel indicated on March 11, 2024 that it was conducting investigation to see if the corporation has any assets. On April 9, 2024, after Defendant’s counsel told Plaintiff’s counsel that there was no insurance, the Court stated that counsel informed the Court that she exchanged e-mails with counsel but has found out very little information. The Court conferred with counsel and dismissed the case. Accordingly, it does not appear that there are any new or different facts, circumstances, or law presented to the Court now that was not already considered.

Based on the foregoing, the motion is DENIED.

It is so ordered.

Dated: June 11, 2024

_______________________

MEL RED RECANA

Judge of the Superior Court