Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 20CMCV00110, Date: 2024-03-12 Tentative Ruling
INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must:
1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.
2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and
3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service.
If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on.
TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/u
Case Number: 20CMCV00110 Hearing Date: March 12, 2024 Dept: A
20CMCV00110
Dong “Tony” Xie v. Next Generation Logistics, Inc., David Shen
Tuesday,
March 12, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
TAKING OFF CALENDAR PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The first amended
complaint (“FAC”) filed on July 25, 2023, alleged wage and hour and other claims
in violation of the Labor Code (1st through 6th, 8th and
9th causes of action); wrongful termination (7th cause of
action); intentional infliction of emotional distress (10th cause of
action) and a claim for unlawful business practices (11th cause of
action).
The Court entered
default against Next Gen on September 7, 2023, and against Shen on September
15, 2023. Plaintiff dismissed all DOES on November 17, 2023. The court issued a
judgment on January 12, 2024, in Plaintiff’s favor, totaling $16,915.06 and
mailed the judgment to Plaintiff on the same day.
Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of
the judgment. Plaintiff explains that he failed to submit the evidence of
Plaintiff’s time cards on which Plaintiff’s counsel relied to form his summary
of Plaintiff’s damages. Plaintiff did not provide the documentary evidence
supporting the summary because it was “voluminous.” Plaintiff now submits the
time cards for the Court’s reconsideration of judgment.
The
court is without jurisdiction to consider a motion for reconsideration once a
judgment is signed. (APRI
Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 176, 181–182 [“A
final judgment terminates the litigation between the parties and leaves nothing
in the nature of judicial action to be done other than questions of enforcement
or compliance. ‘Until entry of judgment, the court retains complete power to
change its decision ...; it may change its conclusions of law or findings of
fact. [Citation.] After judgment a trial court cannot correct judicial error
except in accordance with statutory proceedings. [Citations.] A motion for
reconsideration is not such a motion.’”].)
As the court does not have
jurisdiction to re-consider this case under Civil Procedure section 1008, the
motion is taken OFF CALENDAR.