Judge: Melissa R. Mccormick, Case: "Hoang v. Ben Auto Haus, LLC", Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Defendant San Diego County Credit Union’s Motion for Reconsideration or, in the alternative, for Leave to File Renewed Motion for Summary Adjudication

Defendant San Diego County Credit Union moves for reconsideration of the court’s January 12, 2023 order complying with the appellate court’s alternative writ issued in Hoang v. Superior Court, Court of Appeal Case No. G061747 (filed 12/9/22).  In the alternative, defendant moves for leave to file a renewed motion for summary adjudication.  For the following reasons, defendant’s motion is denied.

Civil Procedure Code section 1008(a) states that a party affected by a court order may, within ten days after service on the party of written notice of entry of the order “and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law,” apply for reconsideration of the matter and seek an order modifying, amending or revoking the prior order.  Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1008(a).  “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.”  Id.  A motion for reconsideration may only be brought if the party moving for reconsideration can offer “new or different facts, circumstances, or law” which it could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the time of the prior motion.  Mink v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1342; Jade K. v. Viguri (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1459, 1467.

Defendant’s motion for reconsideration does not identify any allegedly “new or different facts, circumstances, or law,” much less “new or different facts, circumstances, or law” defendant could not have produced at the time the parties filed their briefs in this court addressing the alternative writ.  See ROA 471, 476, 480.  Moreover, defendant’s motion relies on an interpretation of the alternative writ that the text of the alternative writ does not support.  The alternative writ ordered this court to:  “(1) vacate its August 4, 2022, order granting real party in interest’s motion for summary judgment and enter a new order denying the motion for summary judgment; Or, in the alternative (2) SHOW CAUSE before this court why a peremptory writ of mandate should not issue.”  The court’s January 12, 2023 order complied with the appellate court’s instructions.  If defendant contends the appellate court intended this court to do something other than that ordered in the alternative writ, this court stands ready to comply with any further instructions from the appellate court.

Defendant alternatively seeks an order granting it leave to file a renewed summary adjudication motion.  Civil Procedure Code section 1008(b) governs renewed motions.  Unless and until a party files a renewed motion, the court has no basis on which to determine whether a renewed motion satisfies section 1008(b) and any other applicable statutes.  That said, the court notes that defendant’s instant motion rests on assertions about the appellate court’s consideration of the alternative writ that the text of the alternative writ does not appear to support.      

Plaintiff to give notice.