Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case Number: 23CHCV01552, Date: 2025-02-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV01552, Date: 2025-02-25 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 23CHCV01552 Hearing Date: February 25, 2025 Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 2/25/25

Case #23CHCV01552

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Motion filed on 7/1/24.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Zuolin Cao

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Topa Insurance Company

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: Reconsideration, pursuant to CCP 1008, of the court’s 6/6/24 order dismissing Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint with prejudice.

RULING: The motion is denied.

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arose out of Plaintiff Zuolin Cao’s (Plaintiff) dissatisfaction with Defendant Topa Insurance’s (Defendant) handling and denial of the claim for her defense in an underlying action.

Since 2015, Plaintiff had an insurance policy (the Policy) issued by Defendant for Plaintiff’s real property located at 10500 Alabama Ave. in Chatsworth, California 91311 (the Property). (Amended Complaint, Ex.1; Original Complaint, Attachment Item 8 ¶1). On 6/26/18, the body of the Plaintiff’s tenant’s mother was found in the swimming pool of Plaintiff’s property. (Amended Complaint).

The tenant sued Plaintiff for wrongful death (Underlying Action). Id. The Policy issued by Defendant to Plaintiff for the Property did not include liability insurance. (Id., Ex.1). Therefore, Defendant declined to extend coverage for Plaintiff’s defense in the Underlying Action. (Id. at ¶¶1-2). Plaintiff alleges that it was Defendant’s fault that she did not have liability coverage for the Property. Id. Plaintiff did not retain counsel to represent her in the Underlying Action. (Original Complaint ¶6). Ultimately, the Underlying Action was voluntarily dismissed.

On 5/30/23, Plaintiff, representing herself, filed this action against Defendant alleging claims for: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Failed Defense/Rejected to Defend Plaintiff; (3) Policy Did Not Comply With the Law; (4) Failed to Comply With the Code of Insurance Procedure;

(5) Fiduciary Duty and (6) Insurance Provided by Defendant to Plaintiff Was Defective. After meet and confer efforts failed to resolve the issues Defendant had with the complaint, on 1/16/24, Defendant filed and served a demurrer to the entire complaint on the grounds that it failed to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and was uncertain. CCP 430.10(e), (f). Plaintiff opposed the demurrer and Defendant filed a reply to the opposition. On 2/15/24, the Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer with leave to amend. (See 2/15/24 Minute Order).

On 3/14/24, Plaintiff, still representing herself, filed an Amended Complaint alleging the following “causes of action”: (1) “Defendant’s reply to Plaintiff’s request for legal assistance is against the facts, violates the law and lacks fairness;” (2) “Defendant failed disclosure duty by California Insurance Law depriving Plaintiff’s right to be informed;” (3) “Defendant’s misconduct, suspicion of commercial fraud;” (4) “Defendant made both mistakes in handling Plaintiff’s property insurance policy and in reply to Plaintiff’s request defense, therefore, was obliged to indemnify, pay a civil penalty, and return the premium.” After meet and confer efforts failed to resolve the issues Defendant had with the Amended Complaint, on 4/16/24, Defendant filed and served a demurrer to the entire Amended Complaint on the grounds that it failed to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and was uncertain. CCP 430.10(e), (f). Plaintiff opposed the demurrer and Defendant filed a reply to the opposition. On 6/3/24, Plaintiff improperly filed a document titled “Reply to Defendant’s Reply In Support Plaintiff’s Opposition to Demurrer and Amended Complaint” along with Plaintiff’s declaration. On 6/6/24, the Court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the First Amended Complaint with prejudice. (See 6/6/24 Minute Order; 6/6/24 Order of Dismissal). On 6/17/24, Defendant filed and served a notice of ruling on the demurrer. (See 6/17/24 Notice of Ruling). On 6/20/24, Defendant filed (served 6/19/24) a notice of judgment of dismissal. (See 6/20/24 Notice of Judgment of Dismissal).

On 7/1/24, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion seeking reconsideration, pursuant to CCP 1008, of the court’s 6/6/24 order dismissing Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint with prejudice. Defendant has opposed the motion and Plaintiff has filed a reply to the opposition.

ANALYSIS

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) is granted as to Exhibits A, B, E, J and K. Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is granted as to Exhibits C, D, F, G, H and I as to the existence of such documents in the court file.

The written order of dismissal entered by the Court in this case on 6/6/24 constitutes a final judgment. See CCP 581d; APRI Ins. Co. (1999) 76 CA4th 176, 181; See also Estate of Dito (2011) 198 CA4th 791,799; Quick (2010) 186 CA4th 371, 377 fn.2; Kruss (2010) 185 CA4th 699, 712 fn.12. After entry of judgment, a trial has no jurisdiction to grant reconsideration. APRI Ins. Co., supra at 181-182; Marshall (2020) 54 CA5th 275, 284; Ramon (1996) 50 CA4th 1233, 1237; Betz (1993) 16 CA4th 931, 937-938; Aguilar (2001) 25 C4th 826, 859 n.29.

Even if the court had jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the motion, it fails because Plaintiff has not presented any new or different facts, circumstances or law to support the motion. See CCP 1008(a); Schep (2017) 12 CA5th 1331, 1339. In the motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff relies on a 6/20/19 letter from Defendant to Plaintiff which Plaintiff claims shows that “no liability coverage was provided to any insured, including Plaintiff” by Defendant. (See Motion, p.2:5-7, Ex.2). The letter is not new or different evidence as Plaintiff previously submitted it to the court multiple times. (See RJN, Ex.D, Ex.2; Ex.F, Ex.3; Ex.H, Ex.2; Ex.I, Ex.2). Even if the letter was considered as new or different evidence, it states that “[t]he Topa [Defendant] policy does not provide personal liability coverage to you or any other person under any of its provisions” which further supports the ruling on the demurrer and order dismissing Plaintiff’s action against Defendant. (See Cao Decl., Ex.2).

The outcome of a separate action between Plaintiff and her “policy agent” also has no bearing the instant action as Defendant was not a party to that action and is not in privity with any party to that action. See DKN Holdings LLC (2015) 61 C4th 813, 824-825. Even if the outcome of this separate action had some bearing on this case, that action was dismissed on 3/5/24, before Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint. (RJN, Ex.K). Plaintiff provides no explanation for not raising the argument earlier (i.e., before the dismissal of the First Amended Complaint). As such, the outcome of the other action does not constitute new or different facts or circumstances warranting reconsideration of this court’s order of dismissal in this action.

CONCLUSION

The motion is denied.