Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1008(a), Defendant James Arden filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's July 25, 2022 ruling (per Judge Steven Kleifield) denying Arden's Motion to Quash Subpoenas, Demand for Production and Notices to Third Parties, and for an Order Setting Aside Eleven-Year-Old Assignment Order. The Court is denying Arden's Motion for Reconsideration.
Section 1008(a) provides as follows: "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." A party seeking reconsideration of an order under Section 1008 must explain why the asserted new or different facts, circumstances, or law could not with reasonable diligence been presented in connection with proceeding that led to the order that is the subject of the reconsideration motion. (Evan Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, Inc. (2015) 61 Cal.4th 830, 833) .
Arden's Motion for Reconsideration fails to satisfy the requirements of Section 1008. For one, the motion is untimely. It was filed more than ten days after notice of the ruling that is the the subject of the motion. More fundamentally, the motion does not set forth new or different facts, circumstances, or law that would support reconsideration of the prior ruling. Instead, Arden largely relies on the same facts, circumstances and law that he presented in connection with his unsuccessful motion that led to the prior ruling. To the extent that there is any new fact, circumstances or law presented, Arden fails to demonstrate why he could not have with reasonable diligence presented it in the prior proceeding.
¿
