Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 21STCP01985, Date: 2022-08-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCP01985 Hearing Date: August 4, 2022 Dept: 50
NICOLE SULLIVAN, Petitioner, vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Respondents. |
Case No.: |
21STCP01985 |
Hearing Date: |
August 4, 2022 |
|
Hearing Time: |
10:00 a.m. |
|
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
RE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND/OR TO VACATE AND/OR TO SET ASIDE THE MAY 2, 2022 ORDER/RULING DENYING PETITIONER’S PETITION FOR ORDER FROM RELIEF FROM [LATE] CLAIM STATUTE |
Background
On June 21, 2021, Petitioner Nicole Sullivan
(“Petitioner”) filed a “Petition for Order From Relief From Claim Statute”
(“Petition”) in this action against the County of Los Angeles (“County”) and
the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, (jointly “Respondents”).
On
May 2, 2022, the Court issued an order denying Petitioner’s Petition for Order From [sic] Relief From
Claim Statute. On May 13, 2022, the County filed and served notice of the May
2, 2022 Order.
Petitioner now moves for an order for reconsideration and/or to vacate and/or to set aside the May 2,
2022 Order. The County opposes.
Legal Standard
Code of Civil Procedure section 1008,
subdivision (a) provides:
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.
The legislative intent was to restrict
motions for reconsideration to
circumstances where a party offers the court some fact or circumstance not
previously considered, and some valid
reason for not offering it earlier. ((Gilberd
v. AC Transit (1995) 32
Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500);
(Mink v.
Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1342 [“[T]he party seeking reconsideration
must provide not only new evidence but also a satisfactory explanation for the
failure to produce that evidence at an earlier time.”]); (New York Times
Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212-213 [“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.”].)
Reconsideration cannot
be granted based on claims the court misinterpreted
the law in its initial ruling; that is not
a “new” or “different” matter. ((Gilberd v. AC
Transit, supra, 32
Cal.App.4th at p. 1500.) Moreover, counsel’s mistake based on ignorance of the law is not a proper basis for reconsideration.
(Pazderka v. Caballeros Dimas Alang, Inc. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 658, 670.)
Discussion
Petitioner first argues that the “the May 2, 2022 Order
is based on error(s) of law.” (Mot. at p. 8:9.) But as the County notes, this
is not the standard for a motion for reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. Although it is not
entirely clear, Petitioner appears to point to “different”
law, citing to J.J. v. County
of San Diego (2014)
223 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1221, where the Court of Appeal noted that “[r]elief from the six-month limit is granted under the same
showing as is required for relief under Code of
Civil Procedure section 473. It is the well-recognized policy of the law to
liberally construe remedial statutes designed to protect persons within their
purview, and the modern trend of judicial decisions favors granting relief
unless absolutely forbidden by statute.” (Internal citations and quotations
omitted.)[1] Petitioner
asserts that given this policy, the Court erred in denying the petition.
Next, Petitioner contends that the “May 2, 2022 Order is based
on error(s) of fact.” (Mot. at p. 10:9.) The Court notes that this is also not
the standard for a motion for
reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure section
1008. In any event, Petitioner points out that her counsel
inadvertently failed to
attach a November
27, 2020 document titled “Application to Present a Late Claim,” to the petition.
(Williams Affidavit, ¶ 35.) Petitioner’s counsel also states that at the
hearing on the petition, he requested
leave to amend the petition in order to include the complete application to present a late claim. (Williams Affidavit, ¶ 45.)
As the
parties note, the “Late Claim Application” attached as Exhibit “C” to Petitioner’s counsel’s affidavit was also attached to Petitioner’s reply in support of the petition. The
Court notes that, “[p]oints raised
for the first time in a reply brief will ordinarily not
be considered, because such consideration would deprive the respondent of an
opportunity to counter the argument.” (American Drug Stores, Inc. v. Stroh (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1446, 1453.) However, the Court
also notes that pursuant to Government Code section
946.6, subdivision (e), “[t]he court shall make an independent
determination upon the petition [for an order relieving the petitioner
from Section 945.4]. The determination shall be made upon the
basis of the petition, any affidavits in support of or in opposition to the
petition, and any additional evidence received at the hearing on the petition.”
(Emphasis added.)
Because Petitioner attached the November 27, 2020 “Application to Present a Late Claim” document to her reply in support
of the petition, and because her counsel made an oral request at the at the May 2, 2022 hearing for leave to amend the petition
accordingly, there appears to be additional evidence that the Court should have
considered in connection with the petition.
Conclusion
Based
on the foregoing, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is granted. The Court vacates its May 2, 2022 Order denying
Petitioner’s Petition for
Order From [sic] Relief From Claim Statute.
Petitioner may file an amended petition, and has until August 11, 2022, to
reserve a hearing date thereon via the Court’s online reservation system.
Any hearing on an amended petition must be set so the County
receives at least 16 court days of notice per Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b). Any
opposition and reply papers must be filed and served per Code
of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b).
Petitioner is ordered to give notice
of this Order.
DATED:
________________________________
Hon. Teresa A.
Beaudet
Judge, Los
Angeles Superior Court
[1]The Court notes that J.J.
v. County of San Diego (2014) 223
Cal.App.4th 1214 was not cited to by petitioner in the petition.