Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2021-00055027-CL-OR-CTL, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 30, 2023

09/01/2023  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 - Limited  Other Real Property Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00055027-CL-OR-CTL VALENTINE VS LANG [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION UNDER CCP 1008 is DENIED.

Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider the ruling on Defendant James F. Catalano, C.P.A.'s ('Defendant') and Joining Defendants MERRIANNE E. DEAN and BELLATOR LAW GROUP, APC's ('Joining Defendants') (collectively 'Defendants') demurrer to Plaintiff's operative complaint. 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 his 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 the time of the demurrer.

While Plaintiff provides reasons he did not appear for the hearing, Plaintiff fails to address that, for all the Court knows, Plaintiff could have provided the purported 'evidence' that he states he wants to provide at the time of his filed opposition. Further, Plaintiff's failure to appear at the hearing is 'clearly collateral to the merits' of the motion. (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.) Importantly, Plaintiff does not even suggest the 'evidence' he would want to present is judicially noticeable nor does he adequately explain how it should change this Court's ruling. Plaintiff essentially concedes, by failing to address in a reply, that he failed to explain why, with reasonable diligence, the facts, circumstances, or law could not have been raised at the time of the demurrer. The motion is denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2981870  54