Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2021-00002705-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2023-11-22 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 21, 2023

11/22/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00002705-CU-PO-CTL HEITMAN VS 1315 ORANGE LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION is DENIED.

Plaintiff LAYLA HEITMAN ('Plaintiff') requests the Court reconsider its ruling on Defendant 1315 ORANGE AVE, LLC DBA LA AVENIDA INN's ('Defendant') motion for summary judgment against Plaintiff. Plaintiff's motion is based on evidence that another gate at the pool could have been opened from the inside, but there would have been no way to exit the pool from inside if the gates were locked by padlock.

A party may move the Court to reconsider a prior ruling 'based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law....' (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008.) '[F[acts of which the party seeking reconsideration was aware at the time of the original ruling are not 'new or different.'' (In re Marriage of Herr (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1468 [Citation omitted].) 'The moving party also must provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure to make the showing at or before the time the challenged order was issued.' (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 208.) '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. (Id. at 212–213.) The Court agrees Plaintiff has failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure to provide the purportedly new facts by the time of the hearing. It is undisputed that the two gates existed at the time of the hearing. The existence of the other gate is not a new fact. Plaintiff merely failed to provide evidence of it. The Court also agrees Plaintiff has not raised new or different laws that were not available at the time of the hearing. Plaintiff does not provide a satisfactory explanation for failing to raise the case law that already existed at the time of hearing. The most recently cited case is Razoumovitch v. 726 Hudson Ave., LLC (2023) 308 Cal.Rptr.3d 488, but it is not officially published and is not new – it was available at the time of the hearing. The Court cannot grant the motion.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3010139  49