Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 20CMCV00248, Date: 2023-09-12 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: 20CMCV00248 Hearing Date: September 12, 2023 Dept: A
20CMCV00248
Rudolph R. Forrest v. Oren C. Qualls
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FOR RECONSIDERATION
The Second Amended
Complaint alleges that Plaintiff obtained title to real property in Compton by
adverse possession when he moved onto the property in 2005. Plaintiff alleges
claims to quiet Defendant’s title and to cancel a deed purporting to transfer
ownership to Defendant. A court trial commenced on September 1, 2022. At the
conclusion of trial, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for a nonsuit and
entered judgment for Defendant. On July 25, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s
unopposed motion to vacate judgment and for a new trial.
A motion to reconsider
must be made 10 days from written notice of entry of the order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd (a)). The clerk served notice of the Court’s July 25, 2023, ruling
denying Plaintiff’s motion to vacate judgment. Plaintiff untimely filed this
motion on August 10, 2023.
Plaintiff’s
substantive arguments are unavailing. A motion for reconsideration must be
based on new or different facts, circumstances, or law. (Id.) Plaintiff argues that the Court erred in determining that it
lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion pursuant to Civil Procedure section
473(b). Plaintiff contends the motion was based on subpart (d), which allows
the Court to correct clerical mistakes in its judgments and to set aside any
void judgment or order. Subpart (d) has no application here, since Plaintiff
did not argue that the judgment was void or that the clerk made an error.
Plaintiff also argues
that equitable tolling applies to extend the time for filing a motion for new
trial. Plaintiff’s reliance on Hopkins v. Kedzierski (2014)
225 Cal.App.4th 736 is misplaced as Hopkins states
the general principle that issues of equity may be decided first by the Court. The
principle of equitable totaling “is designed to prevent unjust and technical
forfeitures of the right to a trial on the merits when the purpose of the statute
of limitations—timely notice to the defendant of the plaintiff's claims—has
been satisfied.” (McDonald v. Antelope Valley Community College Dist. (2008) 45 Cal.4th 88, 99.) The
doctrine suspends or extends a statute of limitations to ensure fundamental
practicality and fairness.” (Id.) The principle does not apply here, and
it does not constitute a new or different fact, circumstance, or law to warrant
reconsideration of the Court’s prior order.
Finally, Plaintiff
contends that since he filed a notice of appeal on September 20, 2022, the
Court was “out of jurisdiction” until such time that the appeal was dismissed.
(Motion, 6:23.) Plaintiff does not cite any authority for this proposition. Trial
court proceedings are stayed when an appeal is “perfected.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 916.) Perfection
of an appeal is complete “when the formalities prescribed by the Rules on
Appeal are complied with, and ‘stays all further proceedings in the court
below’ since jurisdiction is thenceforth vested in the appellate court. "
(Navarro v. Lippold (1948) 86
Cal.App.2d 677, 679.) There is no evidence to support
a determination of when Plaintiff perfected his appeal. More importantly, this
is not a new fact, circumstance, or law. “New facts” does not mean all facts
not previously presented. The moving party is required to show diligence, namely
a satisfactory reason for not presenting the facts previously. (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997)
58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690.)
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.