Judge Peter A. Hernandez, Case Number: 19PSCV00178, Date: 2024-03-05 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Derek Siri’s Motion to Set Aside Order and/or for Reconsideration is DENIED in full.

On February 16, 2018, Plaintiff was injured during an altercation with Dwayne Cooper aka Duane Cooper (“Cooper”), a Fire Inspector for the Los Angeles County Fire Department (“LACFD”), after he discovered Cooper engaged in sexual conduct with Plaintiff’s wife. Plaintiff thereafter went to LACFD Station #32 in Azusa to file a complaint against Cooper, but John Doe Fire Captain ended up making a false police report in which he blamed Plaintiff for the disturbance.

On March 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), asserting causes of action against Cooper, County of Los Angeles (“County”), LACFD, John Doe Fire Captain and Does 1-50 for:

On November 24, 2020, the court sustained County’s demurrer to the Second through Fourth, and Seventh and Eighth Causes of Action, without leave to amend. The court also sustained Cooper’s demurrer to the Second through Fourth, and Seventh and Eighth Causes of Action, without leave to amend.

On January 4, 2021, an “Order Re: Stipulation Concerning Stricken Language of Nonconsensual Actions in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint” was filed. On January 6, 2021, a “Court Order Re: Stricken Language in the Second Amended Complaint” was filed, wherein portions of Paragraphs 19, 46, 49 and 52 were stricken from the SAC.

On June 30, 2022, the court granted County’s Motion for Summary Judgment. On July 1, 2022, “Judgment on Defendant County of Los Angeles’ Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication” was entered.

On November 14, 2022, an “Order Denying Defendant Duane Cooper’s Motion for Summary Judgment and, Alternatively, Granting, in Part, and Denying, in Part, Motion for Summary Adjudication” was entered, wherein Plaintiff’s first and tenth causes of action were adjudicated in Cooper’s favor.

The case proceeded to jury trial on July 26, 2023. On August 10, 2023, judgment was entered. On August 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed (and served via email) a “Notice of Entry of Judgment.”

On October 31, 2023, the court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict on its own motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 629(a). On November 6, 2024, a “Memorandum Denying Defendant Duane Cooper’s Motion for New Trial and Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (‘JNOV’) and Granting Court’s JNOV in Favor of Defendant Cooper Concerning Medical Expenses and Punitive Damages” was filed.

On November 13, 2023, the “Order for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict” and “Judgment” were entered.

Plaintiff moves the court to set aside its order filed November 6, 223 and/or for reconsideration of the court’s grant of judgment notwithstanding the verdict on its own motion.

The court rules on Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) as follows: Granted as to Exhibit A (i.e., October 31, 2023 minute order) and Granted as to Exhibit B (i.e., Memorandum Denying Defendant Duane Cooper’s Motion for New Trial and Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (‘JNOV’) and Granting Court’s JNOV in Favor of Defendant Cooper Concerning Medical Expenses and Punitive Damages” filed November 6, 2023).

Plaintiff first seeks reconsideration of the court’s judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is summarily denied on the basis of lack of jurisdiction. “A court may reconsider its order granting or denying a motion and may even reconsider or alter its judgment so long as judgment has not yet been entered. Once judgment has been entered, however, the court may not reconsider it and loses its unrestricted power to change the judgment. It may correct judicial error only through certain limited procedures such as motions for new trial and motions to vacate the judgment.” (Passavanti v. Williams (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1602, 1606.) The motion was filed on November 13, 2023; however, the “Order for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict” and “Judgment” were entered that same day. The court cannot rule on the reconsideration aspect of the motion.

At any rate, Plaintiff has not articulated any “new or different facts, circumstances, or law,” as required by Code of Civil Procedure § 1008; rather, Plaintiff’s argument is that he disagrees with the court’s November 6, 2023 memorandum setting forth the reasons for its October 31, 2023 rulings.

Plaintiff then asserts that the court’s ruling on its own judgment notwithstanding the verdict is “void and late as a matter of law” because “[t]he court lost jurisdiction to rule[] after October 31, 2023.” (Motion, 2:3-4 and 3:16-17). This argument, however, ignores the fact that the court granted its judgment notwithstanding the verdict on October 31, 2023. (RJN, Exh. A). Code of Civil Procedure § 660, subdivision (c) states, in pertinent part, that “[a] motion for new trial is not determined within the meaning of this section until an order ruling on the motion is entered in the permanent minutes of the court or signed by the judgment and filed with the clerk. The entry of a new trial order in the permanent minutes of the court shall constitute a determination of the motion even though that minute order, as entered, expressly directs that a written order be prepared, signed, and filed . . .”

The court’s November 6, 2023 memorandum was prepared and entered in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure § 657, which provides, in relevant part, that “[i]f an order granting such motion does not contain [a] specification of reasons [for granting a new trial], the court must, within 10 days after filing such order, prepare, sign and file such specification of reasons in writing with the clerk. The court shall not direct the attorney for a party to prepare either or both said order and said specification of reasons.”

Plaintiff’s citation to Powell v. County of Orange (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1572 and Banning v. Newdow (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 438 for the proposition that “[a]n unsigned minute order, is. . . not valid for purposes of granting a JNOV based upon 629(a)” is misplaced. In Powell, an unsigned minute order was issued dismissing the action without prejudice for lack of prosecution. Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the dismissal, which was denied, as was a subsequent motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeal there held that the order denying the motion for reconsideration was not an appealable order and that an unsigned minute order of dismissal was not effective as a judgment under Code of Civil Procedure § 581d[1]. Banning involved a father’s appeal of an order requiring him to pay a portion of the mother’s attorney’s fees in child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Code § 7640. Neither case involved a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or Code of Civil Procedure § 629.

Plaintiff’s complaints about the propriety of the court’s October 13, 2023 minute order are irrelevant to his jurisdictional argument. The October 13, 2023 minute order, moreover, does not constitute a “new or different fact[], circumstance[] or law,” inasmuch as it was in existence at the time of the court’s October 31, 2023 minute order and November 6, 2023 memorandum.

[1] Code of Civil Procedure § 581d provides, in relevant part, that “[all dismissals ordered by the court shall be in the form of a written order signed by the court and filed in the action and those orders when so filed shall constitute judgments and be effective for all purposes, and the clerk shall note those judgments in the register of actions in the case.”