Judge: Sarah J. Heidel, Case: 24NNCV05683, Date: 2025-05-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV05683    Hearing Date: May 7, 2025    Dept: V

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT V

FREDERICK PIÑA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SHAVER CASTRONOVO, LLP,

Defendant.

Case No.: 24NNCV05863
Hearing Date: May 7, 2025
Time: 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiff FREDERICK PIÑA

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed

The court considered the moving papers.

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of defendant’s representation of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company in an action filed by plaintiff in Los Angeles County Superior Court case number 24NNCV03841 (State Farm case). In that action, State Farm filed a motion to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant, which was granted on December 13, 2024.

Plaintiff Frederick Piña brought this action against defendant Shaver, Castronovo, LLP on November 18, 2024. Plaintiff alleged causes of action of fraudulent inducement, intentional misrepresentation, civil rights violation, and deceit.

Plaintiff served defendant with the summons and complaint on November 19, 2024, via electronic service. Defendant moved to quash service. The court granted the motion on April 9, 2025. Plaintiff moves for reconsideration.

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion for reconsideration must be made within 10 days after service of written notice of entry of the order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008(a).) Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 requires the moving party to present new facts, circumstances or law on a motion for reconsideration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008(a).)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(a).; (2); (3) defendant’s conduct estops it from contesting service; (4) actual notice negates prejudice; and (5) precedent affirms jurisdiction where notice satisfied fairness.

Plaintiff argues that the court misapplied Code of Civil Procedure section 416.10, erroneously treating defendant as a corporation rather than a limited liability partnership subject to Code of Civil Procedure section 416.40. Legal error or misapplication of law does not constitute new facts, circumstances, or law. Furthermore, even if misapplication of law was a basis for reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(a), there is no error. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 416.40, service of summons to a limited partnership is to be made by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the “person designated as agent for service of process in a statement filed with the Secretary of State or to a general partner or the general manager of the partnership.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 416.40(a).) Electronic service does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 416.40.

Plaintiff argues that defendant’s pattern of acquiescence to electronic service in the State Farm matter permits him to serve defendant electronically in this case. Plaintiff raised this argument in opposition to the motion to quash, and it oes not constitute new facts, circumstances, or law.

Plaintiff argues that defendant’s conduct estops it from contesting service. Plaintiff does not provide new facts, circumstances, or law in support of this argument.

Plaintiff also argues that actual notice negates prejudice. Plaintiff raised the actual notice argument in his opposition to the motion to quash, so this argument does not raise new facts, circumstances, or law.

Plaintiff argues that precedent affirms jurisdiction where notice satisfied fairness. Plaintiff cites cases that are not new law.

Because plaintiff fails to provide new facts, circumstances, or law in support of his motion, the court denies the motion for reconsideration.

Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES the motion for reconsideration.