Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 21STCV03788, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Department 71: Attorneys who elect to submit on these published tentative rulings, without making an appearance at the hearing, may so notify the Court by communicating this to the Department's staff at (213) 830-0771 before the set hearing time.  See, e.g., CRC Rule 324(b).   All parties are otherwise encouraged to appear by Court Call for all matters.

Case Number: 21STCV03788    Hearing Date: January 13, 2023    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied.

Plaintiff’s request for all costs and expenses associated with this motion is denied.

Defendants Westport Properties, Inc.’s, US Storage Centers, Inc.’s, Hawthorne Mini Venture, LLC, dba US Storage Centers – South Bay’s, and Benson Williams II’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff is denied.

Plaintiff Wesley Robbins (“Robbins”) (“Plaintiff”), in pro per, moves for this Court to reconsider its October 18, 2022 ruling (“10/18/22 Ruling”) granting Defendants Westport Properties, Inc.’s (“Westport”), US Storage Centers, Inc.’s (“USSC”), Hawthorne Mini Venture, LLC, dba US Storage Centers – South Bay’s (“Hawthorne”), and Benson Williams II’s (“Williams”) (collectively, “Moving Defendants”) motion to compel and request for sanctions against Plaintiff.  (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P §§128.5, 2023.030; Marsy’s Law.)  Plaintiff further requests this Court compensate Plaintiff for all costs and expenses associated with this motion.  (Notice of Motion, pg. 2.)  Moving Defendants request this Court impose a monetary sanction in the amount of $2,178.20 against Plaintiff.  (Opposition, pg. 2; C.C.P. §1008(d).)

Procedural Background

Plaintiff filed his initial complaint in the instant matter on January 29, 2021, and the first operative amended complaint (“FAC”) on January 14, 2022.  The FAC alleges fifteen causes of action related to civil conspiracy involving multiple defendants, including Moving Defendants. On September 21, 2022, Moving Defendants filed the relevant motion to compel deposition in light of issues obtaining Plaintiff’s deposition.

          On October 18, 2022, this Court granted Moving Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition and request for monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $547.00 against Plaintiff.  (10/18/22 Ruling.)

          Plaintiff filed the instant motion on October 28, 2022.  Moving Defendants filed their opposition on December 30, 2022.  Plaintiff filed his reply on January 9, 2023. 

Motion for Reconsideration

C.C.P. §1008(a) provides, as follows:  “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.”

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Court’s ruling on the following grounds: (1) the Court failed to not that Plaintiff filed a timely response to Moving Defendants’ motion to compel; (2) the Court’s 10/18/22 Ruling only cites Moving Defendants’ counsel’s declaration as evidence; (3) the Court’s 10/18/22 Ruling does not use any sworn statement by Plaintiff; (4) the Court did not examine Moving Defendants’ counsel at the hearing; and (5) the Court does not appear to have read or considered the facts or law regarding issues (1) or (3) that Plaintiff raises.  (Motion, pg. 6.)

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration as to the motion to compel deposition is moot because his deposition took place on November 2, 2022.  (Decl. of Wright ¶6.)  This court does not have jurisdiction to grant Plaintiff’s motion because the Plaintiff’s motion fails to state “what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown” and an explanation for the failure to have produced the new evidence earlier.  (Opposition, pg. 3; see C.C.P. §1008(a); Robbins v. Los Angeles Unified School District (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 313, 316.)  Plaintiff cannot argue that the very motion it seeks to reconsider and the hearing on the motion is the “new or different fact[], circumstance[], or law” under C.C.P. §1008(a) and (b).  Further, Marsy’s Law is inapposite as “new law” because Marsy’s Law only applies in criminal proceedings, and Marsy’s Law has been in effect since November 5, 2008.  (Slaieh v. Superior Court of Riverside County (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 266, 274; Cal. Const. art. I, §28.)

          Accordingly, this Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and his related request for expenses incurred in filing the instant motion.

          Sanctions

Moving Defendants’ motion for sanctions is denied.

Dated:  January _____, 2023

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court