Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2021-00004036-CU-MM-CTL, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 10, 2023

08/11/2023  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  Medical Malpractice Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00004036-CU-MM-CTL SGARLATO VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S ORDER DATED 12/14/2022 is DENIED.

Plaintiff CAMELIA SGARLATO ('Plaintiff') asks the Court to reconsider the ruling on Defendants THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and DAVID J. DALSTROM, M.D.'s ('DALSTROM') (collectively 'Defendants') motion for summary judgment, which challenged Plaintiff's causes of action for: (1) medical malpractice, (2) lack of informed consent, (3) battery, and (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress.

A party may move the Court to reconsider a prior ruling 'based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law....' (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008.) '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.) Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden. Plaintiff has not presented new or different facts, circumstances, or law for which Plaintiff has provided a satisfactory reason for failing to raise at time of the motion for summary judgment. The law cited by Plaintiff is not 'new' as the cases were published before this Court's ruling. Plaintiff essentially concedes, by failing to address in the reply, that she failed to explain why, with reasonable diligence, the facts and circumstances could not have been raised at the time of the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff also requests the Court exercise its inherent authority to change its ruling in light of the facts and law raised by Plaintiff. The Court has the 'inherent authority to change its decision at any time prior to the entry of judgment.' (Darling, Hall & Rae v. Kritt (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1148, 1156.) Judgment was entered on December 28, 2022. Therefore, Court cannot grant Plaintiff's requests. The motion is denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2920583  40