Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 22STUD05643, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STUD05643    Hearing Date: March 6, 2024    Dept: 1

22STUD05643           KIMI KIM vs TONI AGUILAR, et al.

(1)   Motion for Reconsideration Filed January 25, 2024;

(2)   Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Granting Motion for Attorney Fees Filed January 29, 2024.

TENTATIVE RULINGS:   Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration filed January 25, 2024 is DENIED.  Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Granting Motion for Attorney Fees filed January 29, 2024 is DENIED.  Clerk to give notice.

Background

On September 16, 2022, Plaintiff Kimi Kim filed this unlawful detainer action against Toni Aguilar, Norma Aguilar, Jose Aguilar, and Abi Aguilar related to real property located at 1651 E. 42 St. #2 Los Angeles, CA 90011.

On April 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a second unlawful detainer action against Tony Aguilar, Norma Aguilar, Taurino Aguilar, Jose Aguilar, Abi Aguilar, and Laura Velzqez related to the same property in Los Angeles Superior Court case 23STUD04469.

On May 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed a third unlawful detainer action against Taurino Aguilar, Laura Velzouez, Norma Aguilar, Tony Aguilar, Jose Aguilar, and Abi Aguilar related to the same property in Los Angeles Superior Court case 23STUD04875.

On June 2, 2023, the court issued an order relating the three cases. On July 19, 2023, the court issued an order consolidating the three cases for all purposes.

On July 27, 2023, Judge Richard J. Burdge, Jr. presided over trial on the consolidated cases. On July 28, 2023, the court entered a minute order ordering judgment in favor of Defendants Toni Aguilar and Norma Aguilar and ordering the dismissal of the complaints filed on April 24, 2023 and May 2, 2023 without prejudice. On July 28, 2023, the court also entered a corresponding judgment for Defendants Norma Aguilar, Antonio Aguilar, Taurino Aguilar, and Laura Velasquez.

On January 18, 2024, due to the unavailability of Judge Richard J. Burdge, Jr., Department 1 issued an order granting Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees.

Motion and Reply

On January 25, 2024, Plaintiff Kim filed a two-page pleading document entitled “Motion for Reconsideration,” which was only a notice of motion indicating Plaintiff sought reconsideration of the Court’s “Judgment for Attorney’s Fees.”

On January 29, 2024, Plaintiff Kim filed a new “Motion for Reconsideration of Granting of Motion for Attorneys’ Fees,” which was complete with a notice of motion, memorandum, and declaration.

While the two documents were filed under different reservation numbers in the Court Reservation System, they were noticed for the same date and seek the same relief. Accordingly, the Court addresses the motions in a single order.

On February 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed a two-page pleading document entitled “Reply to the Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration.” However, the Court did not receive a timely filed opposition. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005.)

Motion for Reconsideration

Standard

“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. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a).) 

Plaintiff’s January 25, 2024 Filing is Procedurally Defective

On January 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed a two-page notice of motion, which was not accompanied by any other documents. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1112(a), “the papers filed in support of a motion must consist of at least the following: (1)  A notice of hearing on the motion; (2)  The motion itself; and (3)  A memorandum in support of the motion.” The January 25, 2024 filing did not comply with this requirement and was not accompanied by the requisite declaration when seeking reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration filed on January 25, 2024 is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s January 29, 2024 Filing Does Not Demonstrate a Basis for Reconsideration

On January 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a new motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees.

Plaintiff’s motion was initially accompanied by two separate declarations by Plaintiff Kim. In the declaration dated January 25, 2024, Plaintiff accuses Defendant’s attorney of misrepresentation and malpractice during the litigation, contends the building was well-maintained, and refers to Laura Velzquez as “a very dangerous person.” In the declaration dated January 16, 2024, Plaintiff summarily contends the Tenant Estoppel Certificate is the only governing document and any Rental Agreement “is fraud and should not be part of this action.” All the information provided by Plaintiff was known and available at the first hearing. (In re Marriage of Herr (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1468 (“A motion for reconsideration must be based on new or different facts, circumstances or law [], and facts of which the party seeking reconsideration was aware at the time of the original ruling are not ‘new or different.’”).) Neither of these declarations demonstrate new or different facts or circumstances warranting reconsideration.

On February 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “supplemental declaration” in support of the motion. The Court finds this declaration untimely and exercises its discretion not to consider it. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b) (“all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing.”); Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1300(d).) On February 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed another supplemental declaration, which is improper. (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537 (“The general rule of motion practice, which applies here, is that new evidence is not permitted with reply papers.”); Valentine v. Plum Healthcare Group, LLC (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 1076, 1089 (“New evidence is generally not permitted with reply papers.”).) However, even if the Court were to consider these declarations, they do not provide any basis to reconsider the Court’s order granting attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the merits of the underlying litigation are not properly before the Court on a motion for attorneys’ fees and Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Court’s determination that Defendants are entitled to attorneys’ fees is not a basis for reconsideration. (See e.g. Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.)

In the supporting memorandum, Plaintiff contends she is “disabled due to the assault and battery by Defendant Tenant, Laura Velazquez” which allegedly occurred on September 8, 2022. (Mot. at 2:23-3:8.) Plaintiff also contends she filed three unlawful detainer cases “as defendant Laura Velazquez was a dangerous person” and the police told plaintiff that the assault can be the ground for another Unlawful Detainer Action.” (Mot. at 3:21-23, 4:1.) Plaintiff also reasserts her prior contention that Defendant’s counsel “received $1,000.00 each month from defendants.” (Mot. at 4:6-7.) Other than citing the reconsideration statute, (Mot. at 2:12-21), Plaintiff’s motion is not supported by any legal authority demonstrating reconsideration of the Court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees is warranted. Accordingly, Plaintiff failed to meet her burden as the moving party. (Finn v. G. D. Searle & Co. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 691, 701–702 (“Neither a trial court nor a reviewing court in a civil action is obligated to seek out theories plaintiff might have advanced, or to articulate for him that which he has left unspoken.”); Fenton v. City of Delano (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 400, 410 (“A point totally unsupported by argument and authority may be rejected by the reviewing court without discussion.”).)

Plaintiff has not demonstrated any basis for reconsideration of the Court’s January 18, 2024 order and the January 29, 2024 motion is DENIED.