Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCP01722, Date: 2022-07-27 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 22STCP01722    Hearing Date: July 27, 2022    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:                 Motion for Reconsideration

Moving Party:          Respondent Glamis Dunes, LLC (“Glamis Dunes”)

Resp. Party:             Petitioners Hualun Wang and Hua Sun (“Petitioners”)

Respondent Glamis Dunes, LLC’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

I.           BACKGROUND

On May 5, 2022, Petitioners Hualun Wang and Hua Sun, parents of decedent Peng Wang, petitioned the Court for the issuance of an Order that perpetuates testimony and preserves evidence and for an order to allow immediate, emergency discovery to proceed. “More specifically, Petitioners seek the issuance of an Order from this Court that will facilitate Petitioners’ efforts to locate and preserve the Can-Am Maverick vehicle, which was involved in the death of decedent Peng Wang.” (Petition, p. 1:26-28.)

On May 6, 2022, Brianna J. Strange, counsel for Petitioners Hualun Wang and Hua Sun, parents of decedent Peng Wang and his next-of-kin, verified Petitioners’ petition. No opposition was filed.

On June 10, 2022, the Court granted the petition of Plaintiffs Hualun Wang and Hua Sun to Preserve Evidence.

On July 1, 2022, Defendant Glamis Dunes, LLC moved the Court for an order to reconsider the Court’s ruling of June 10, 2022 to grant Petitioners Hualun Wang and Hua Sun’s Petition to Preserve Evidence.

On July 14, 2022, Petitioners Hualun Wang and Hua Sun opposed Glamis Dunes’ motion for reconsideration.

On July 20, 2022, Glamis Dunes replied to Petitioners’ opposition.

II.        ANALYSIS

A.          Legal Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1008(a):

“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.” (CCP §1008(a).)

A court acts in excess of jurisdiction when it grants a motion to reconsider that is not based upon “new or different facts, circumstances or law.” (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1499.)  There is a strict requirement of diligence, meaning the moving party must present a satisfactory explanation for failing to provide the evidence, different facts, or law earlier. (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690.) A motion for reconsideration can be denied where based on evidence that could have been presented in connection with the original motion. (Morris v. AGFA Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1460; Hennigan v. White (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 395, 406.)

B.          Discussion

1.           New or Different Facts, Circumstances, or Law

Glamis Dunes attests to the following:

·                    Glamis Dunes’ counsel confirmed on May 6, 2022 that the CAN-AM subject vehicle “had been located and returned to Glamis Dunes where it would be safeguarded.” (Fischer Decl., ¶ 7.) This confirmation was emailed to Petitioners on May 6, 2022 at 4:59 PM. (Fischer Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. C; Ceglia Decl., ¶ 13, Ex. G.)

·                    Glamis Dunes offered to schedule a date to inspect the CAN-AM subject vehicle on May 27, 2022 to Petitioners in an email where it reiterated their contention that they were in possession of the CAN-AM subject vehicle and were safeguarding it. (Fischer Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. D; Ceglia Decl., ¶ 19, Ex. K.)

2.           Materiality

The Petitioners sought preservation of evidence of the following:

1.           All documents executed at the time the SXS was rented out on April 15, 2022;

2.           All documents given to the renter(s) as part of the rental package on April 15, 2022;

3.           Records of any repairs or modifications made to the SXS before and/or after the incident;

4.           The name of the buyer of the SXS;

5.           Information regarding the date on which the SXS was transferred to the buyer;

6.           All paperwork executed as part of the sale/transfer of ownership to the buyer; and

7.           The vehicle identification number and/or serial number of the SXS. (Petition, p. 5:9-16.)

Glamis Dunes’ location of the CAN-AM subject vehicle was made possible in part because of Glamis Dunes’ use of the rental documents and the vehicle information number Petitioners seek. (Fischer Decl., ¶¶ 5, 6, Ex. B.) According to Glamis Dunes, Defendant has already complied with this Court’s order to preserve evidence.

The Court simply does not understand why Glamis Dunes filed this motion for reconsideration.  Assuming that Glamis Dunes has already complied with this Court’s order, the order is simply redundant; it doesn’t require Glamis Dunes to do anything more than it has already done.  If Glamis Dunes has not already complied with the Court’s order to preserve evidence, then there would be no reason to vacate the order.

No one is arguing that the evidence should not be preserved.  Glamis Dunes has not presented any material evidence to show that the motion should be vacated.

III.     CONCLUSION

Respondent Glamis Dunes, LLC’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.