Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 22STCV11495, Date: 2022-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11495    Hearing Date: December 13, 2022    Dept: SEC

AGUILA v. MALLEY, et al.

CASE NO.:  22STCV11495

HEARING:  12/13/22 @ 10:30 AM

#8

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Aguila’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

Opposing Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Aguila moves for reconsideration of this court’s August 29, 2022 Order pursuant to CCP § 1008.

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. (CCP § 1008.) The legislative intent was to restrict these motions to circumstances where a party offers the court some fact or circumstance not previously considered, and some valid reason for not offering it early.  (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.) The burden is comparable to that of a party seeking a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, i.e. the information must be such that the Moving party could not with reasonable diligence have discovered or produced it at trial. (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212-213.)

Plaintiff contends that the court should reconsider its Order because it did not consider Plaintiff’s Opposition.

On July 19, 2022, this court posted a tentative ruling to sustain the “unopposed” demurrer.  This court took the demurrer under submission to examine Plaintiff’s late-filed Opposition.

Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, this court did in fact review Plaintiff’s late-filed opposition, and issued a final ruling on Defendants’ demurrer on August 29, 2022.  Based on Plaintiff’s allegations, Plaintiff’s legal authorities do not support a Negligence claim against Greenspoon Marder for actions taken by its employee, Guinevere Malley, prior to her employment.  Additionally, Plaintiff’s opposition cited no facts to warrant leave to amend the Negligence claim against Greenspoon Marder.  Moreover, Plaintiff did not argue any facts at the hearing that would support further leave to amend. 

Accordingly, the instant motion does not raise any new or different facts, circumstances, or law that could not have been raised at the prior demurrer hearing.

The motion is DENIED.