Judge Olivia Rosales, Case 19NWCV00544 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 19NWCV00544, Date: 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19NWCV00544 Hearing Date: April 12, 2023 Dept: F

RISING EDGE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. ALLWIRE, INC.

CASE NO.: 19NWCV00544

HEARING: 04/12/23

JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s December 5, 2022 Order is DENIED.

Opposing Party to give notice.

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of this Court’s December 5, 2022 Order granting Defendant ALLWIRE, INC.’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Summary Adjudication as to Plaintiff’s sixth through eighth, and tenth causes of action. Plaintiff argues that reconsideration is warranted because: “Following this Court’s Order, Plaintiff located communication with AllWire which specifically shows Defendant AllWire’s knowledge of Plaintiff’s contract with Southern California Edison, this evidence is a compelling reason to reconsider the Court’s ruling on the Sixth through Eighth, and Tenth Causes of Action. Further, the applicable law supports Plaintiff’s claim for fraud based on AllWire’s suppression of facts. Summary adjudication should be reconsidered for the Fifth Cause of Action.” (Notice i:24-ii:2.)

Plaintiff argues that reconsideration is necessary because on or about December 13, 2022—after this Court issued its Order granting the subject Motion for Summary Adjudication—Plaintiff discovered communication between its employees with Defendant’s Vice President of Sales, Dana Oyler dated November 30, 2017 which Plaintiff maintains proves that Defendant knew of Plaintiff’s contract with SCE.

In Opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to demonstrate new or different law, facts, or circumstances to justify reconsideration that could not have been presented earlier.

In Reply, Plaintiff condes that the November 30, 2017 email string could have been produced prior to the hearing on the Motion for Summary Adjudication, but was unfortunately not discovered until after this Court issued it’s Order. Plaintiff requests that this Court reconsider it’s December 5, 2022 Order under its inherent authority to do so under Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1107.

CCP §1008

Under CCP §1008, the Court may entertain a motion for reconsideration based on a showing of new or different facts, law, or circumstances. (CCP §1008.) “New or different facts” means facts that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced it earlier. (Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1198.) Under CCP §1008, the burden “is comparable to that of a party seeking a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence: the information must be such that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced it at the trial.” (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (Wall St. Network, Ltd. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212-213.) As a result, a party seeking reconsideration must provide a satisfactory explanation for failing to present the information at the first hearing, and motion for reconsideration is properly denied where it is based on evidence that could have been presented in connection with the original motion. (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 647, 690; Morris v. AGFA Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1460.)

Plaintiff does not meet the statutory requirements for the Motion. Plaintiff concedes that the November 2017 email was in its possession at the time the Motion was argued. Plaintiff fails to satisfactorily explain why Plaintiff could not, with reasonable diligence, have produced the November 30, 2017 email prior to the hearing on the Motion for Summary Adjudication.

Court’s Inherent Authority

In the absence of a change in the law, or new or different facts, the Court has inherent power to reconsider its own interim orders at any time on its own motion (sua sponte). (Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1107.) “We cannot prevent a party from communicating the view to a court that it should reconsider a prior ruling…. We agree that it should no matter whether the judge has an unprovoked flash of understanding in the middle of the night or acts in response to a party’s suggestion. 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.” (Id. at 1108.)

Here, Plaintiff has not presented any arguments that would require the Court, on its own authority, to reconsider its prior ruling. The Court declines to exercise its inherent authority to reconsider its December 5, 2022 Order.

The Motion is DENIED.