Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 22STCV24086, Date: 2022-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV24086    Hearing Date: December 15, 2022    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Shahram Moussazadeh’s motion for reconsideration is denied.

The Court sua sponte sets a hearing to reconsider Plaintiff’s motion for lis pendens for Friday, January 6, 2023, at 8:30 a.m.  Parties are to submit simultaneous briefs of no more than on December 21, 2022, regarding the competence of Plaintiff’s declaration in support of the motion to expunge lis pendens. They may file simultaneous reply briefs of no more than five pages on or before January 3, 2023.

          Defendant Shahram Moussazadeh (“Moussazadeh”) (“Defendant”) moves for this Court to reconsider and vacate the Court’s Order Dated October 31, 2022, on a motion to expunge lis pendens. (Notice of Motion, pg. 1; C.C.P §1008.)

Background

          This action arises from the alleged transfer of title to 11815 Dorothy Street, Unit 5, Los Angeles, California 90049 (“Subject Property”) from Plaintiff to Defendant.  (See First Amended Complaint [“FAC”].)  On July 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed her initial complaint and a notice of lis pendens on Subject Property on July 27, 2022.  On September 12, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to expunge lis pendens.  This Court heard Defendant’s motion on October 24, 2022, and took the matter under submission.  On October 31, 2022, this Court issued the relevant order dated October 31, 2022, denying Defendant’s motion, and awarding Plaintiff’s attorney fees in the amount of $2,400.00 (“Order”).  Defendant filed the instant motion for reconsideration on November 10, 2022.  Plaintiff filed her opposition on December 2, 2022.[1]  Defendant filed his reply on December 5, 2022.

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.” (Emphasis added.)

Defendant argues this Court should reconsider the Order because (1) Plaintiff’s Declaration filed with the Court was not served on the Defendant, since the version served on Defendant lacked a case number and was ignored by Defendant as improper; and (2) Plaintiff’s declaration lacks a proper verification on personal knowledge and is therefore incompetent because it is based on information and belief.  (Motion, pg. 2; Decl. of Gentino, Exh. 1.)

          Defendant fails to 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.  (C.C.P §1008(a).)

          “If a court believes one of its prior interim orders was erroneous, it should be able to correct that error no matter how it came to acquire that belief. For example, nothing would prevent the losing party from asking the court at a status conference to reconsider a ruling. (See Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial, supra, § 9:327.8, p. 9(1)–107.) But a party may not file a written motion to reconsider that has procedural significance if it does not satisfy the requirements of section 437c, subdivision (f)(2), or 1008. The court need not rule on any suggestion that it should reconsider a previous ruling and, without more, another party would not be expected to respond to such a suggestion.”  (Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1108, as modified (June 10, 2005).) 

Here, the Court has been put on notice that Plaintiff’s declaration lacks a proper verification on personal knowledge and is therefore incompetent because it is based on information and belief.  (Id. at pg. 1108.)  Further, the Court notes no Proof of Service was filed with the Court regarding Plaintiff’s Complaint, Summons, Lis Pendens, or Plaintiff’s Declaration in support of Plaintiff’s Complaint.  Accordingly, pursuant to Le Francois, the Court is advising the parties that is reconsidering its ruling on the lis pendens motion.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is denied. The Court sua sponte sets a hearing to reconsider Plaintiff’s motion for lis pendens for Friday, January 6, 2023, at 8:30 a.m.

Parties are to submit simultaneous briefs of no more than 10 pages on or before December 21, 2022, regarding the competence of Plaintiff’s declaration in support of the motion to expunge lis pendens. They may file simultaneous reply briefs of no more than five pages on or before January 3, 2023.

Dated:  December _____, 2022

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court