Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 19STCV00838, Date: 2023-01-12 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT  (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE.  4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020) 

IMPORTANT:  In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely.  The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited.  The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants. 

ALSO NOTE:  If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar.  THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 19STCV00838    Hearing Date: January 12, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Edward Pfiester, Jr.’s motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The Court vacates the October 14, 2022 Order imposing sanctions in the amount of $700 against Moving Party Edward Pfiester, Jr., only.

Legal Standard

A party's right to seek reconsideration of an order is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, which provides, in pertinent part: “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.”  (CCP §¿1008(a).)   

A motion for reconsideration must be based on “new or different facts, circumstances, or law”; facts of which the party seeking reconsideration was aware at the time of the original ruling are not “new or different.”  (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690.)  “According to the plain language of the statute, a court acts in excess of jurisdiction when it grants a motion to reconsider that is not based upon ‘new or different facts, circumstances, or law.’”  (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.)  In addition, a party must provide a satisfactory explanation for failing to offer the evidence in the first instance.  (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 213.) 

Moreover, the court retains the inherent authority to amend its own orders on its own motion. (Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal. 4th 1094, 1107.)  The court’s inherent authority to reconsider and correct its own orders is constitutionally derived. (Walker v. Superior Court¿(1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 267.) A court “must exercise due consideration before modifying, amending, or revoking its prior order.” (Case v. Lazben Financial Co. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 172, 189.)  A court’s inherent power to reconsider interim rulings may be exercised “even in the absence of newly discovered evidence” and “[e]ven without a change of law.” (Ziller Electronics Lab GmbH v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1231, Pinela v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 227, 237.) Thus, the inherent power is distinct from a court’s power under CCP § 1008 following a motion for reconsideration. (Kerns v. CSE Ins. Group (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 368, 389: “Consequently, we hold that the separation of powers doctrine precludes an interpretation of section 1008 that would deprive a trial court of jurisdiction to reconsider its own interim orders sua sponte.”) 

Discussion

Moving Party Edward Pfiester, Jr. (Plaintiff’s former counsel) moves for reconsideration of the Court’s October 14, 2022 ruling, imposing monetary sanctions in the amount of $700 against Moving Party. Moving Party Pfiester argues he substituted out of the case five months prior to the hearing date. Further, the matter was continued from September 16, 2022 to October 14, 2022, and Moving Party was not given notice of the continued date. (8/29/2022 Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order.) Also, the notice of the Order was served (but never upon movant) on November 4, 2022, a date more than six months after movant was substituted out of the case. Moving party argues that this motion is also filed less than ten court days from the date movant examined the Court docket November 16, 2022 after receiving copy of an email from the case’s Mediator, and both saw and obtained a copy of the November 4, 2022 Notice of Ruling of the subject $ 700 discovery sanction. Thus, Moving Party argues the motion for reconsideration is timely because Moving party never received notice of the order.

The Court, however, will exercise its inherent authority and reconsider and correct its own order sua sponte. Under CCP section 2023.040, “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.” Here, Defendant’s notice of motion did not identify moving party and only sought sanctions against Plaintiff. As such, sanctions against moving party should not have been imposed.

Thus, the Court reconsiders and vacates the October 14, 2022 Order only with respect to the imposition of sanctions against moving party.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Edward Pfiester, Jr.’s motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The Court vacates the October 14, 2022 Order only to the extent that it imposes sanctions in the amount of $700 against Moving Party Edward Pfiester, Jr.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.