Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 20PSCV00849, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20PSCV00849 Hearing Date: July 20, 2023 Dept: K
Plaintiff Miller
Liu’s Motion for Reconsideration is summarily DENIED for lack of jurisdiction.
Background
In or about September 2018, Plaintiff engaged in discussions with
Waiming Li (“Li”) and Weiheng Zhen (“Zhen”), whereby Li’s construction company,
Lanterprise, Inc. dba Lanterprise Corporation dba Lanterprise Constriction
(“Lanterprise”), would build an ADU for Plaintiff in Plaintiff’s backyard. Plaintiff
advised Li and Zhen that he intended to move into the ADU and wanted the ADU to
have a separate and independent water, gas and electric meters. The parties
thereafter entered into a contract and Plaintiff paid $170,000.00 towards the
$180,000.00 projected costs as construction progressed. On August 15, 2019, Li
prepared a change order, which set forth additional costs of $21,965.00 for
items related to gas and water connections and meters. Li and Zhen refused to
finish construction of the ADU when Plaintiff disputed paying the $21,965.00. Plaintiff
has obtained a written quote of $41,705.44 to finish the construction. As Plaintiff
was inspecting the ADU, he discovered that Li and/or Zhen sabotaged some of the
construction before leaving the premises, including drilling a hole in one of
the new metal water pipes and removing a previously installed electrical
breaker that had passed inspection and replacing it with an inexpensive one
which failed inspection by the building inspector in a subsequent inspection.
On December
7, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Lanterprise,
Li, Zhen and Does 1-20 for:
1.
Breach
of Written Agreement
2.
Intentional
Destruction of Property
On April 11, 2023, the court granted Lanterprise’s, Li’s and Zhen’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. On May 4, 2023, judgment was entered; that day, “Notice of Entry of Judgment” was filed.
Legal Standard
“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008(a).)
The legislative intent was to restrict motions for reconsideration to circumstances where a party offers the court some fact or circumstance not previously considered, and some valid reason for not offering it earlier. (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500; Mink v. Sup. Ct. (Arnel Develop. Co., Inc.) (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1342; Baldwin v. Home Sav. of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1198.) “The burden under section 1008 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 (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212-213.)
Discussion
Plaintiff moves the court for reconsideration of its April 11, 2023 order granting Lanterprise’s, Li’s and Zhen’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
The motion is summarily denied for lack of jurisdiction. “[A] trial court may only rule on a motion for reconsideration before entry of judgment.” (Ramon v. Aerospace Corp. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1237.) Judgment was entered in this case on May 4, 2023.