Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 21STCV26414, Date: 2022-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV26414    Hearing Date: October 4, 2022    Dept: 50

ourt of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff Power House, LLC filed this action on July 19, 2021 against Defendants Rachel Morya Garza Perez, Jesus Perez, Jesus Garza Perez, Jr., Jesus Perez, Jr., and Rosa I. Villalobos.

On July 29, 2022, the Court granted Power House, LLC’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. As indicated in the Court’s July 29, 2022 Order, Power House, LLC proposed to amend the original Complaint to, inter alia, change the name of the plaintiff to “High Power House, LLC.” Power House, LLC indicated that High Power House, LLC is the entity that made the offer to purchase the two subject properties which are the subject of this lawsuit.  

On July 29, 2022, Plaintiff High Power House, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed the operative First Amended Complaint against Defendants Rachel Morya Garza Perez, Jesus Perez, Jesus Garza Perez, Jr., Jesus Perez, Jr., asserting three causes of action for declaratory relief.

            On February 14, 2022, Power House, LLC filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause re: mandatory injunction and preliminary injunction.. Generally, Power House, LLC sought to “exclude, enjoin and prevent Rachel Perez and Jesus Perez and their agents, employees, representatives, and all persons acting under them, from having any dealings or contact with the subject real properties of this lawsuit.” (See February 14, 2022 Ex Parte Application at p. 2:8-11.) On February 15, 2022, the Court issued an order granting Power House, LLC’s February 14, 2022 ex parte application in part. (See February 15, 2022 Minute Order and February 15, 2022 Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order.)

Defendants Rachel Morya Garza Perez and Jesus Garza Perez[1], in pro per, (jointly, “Defendants”) now appear to move for reconsideration of the Court’s February 15, 2022 Order granting in part Power House, LLC’s February 14, 2022 ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause re: mandatory injunction and preliminary injunction. Plaintiff opposes.

Discussion

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.

As an initial matter, the instant motion is untimely, as is acknowledged by Defendants. (See Mot. at p. 3:8-10, “Defendants now moves the court now, beyond the statutory deadlines of California Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(a)…”) The time in which to bring a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (a) is ten days after service of written notice of the order. On February 17, 2022, Power House, LLC filed and served notice of the Court’s February 15, 2022 ruling on Power House, LLC’s ex parte application for temporary restraining order and order to show cause re: mandatory injunction and preliminary injunction. Defendants’ instant motion was filed on September 1, 2022.

Defendants assert that the Court should grant the motion for reconsideration sua sponte pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (c), which provides that “[i]f a court at any time determines that there has been a change of law that warrants it to reconsider a prior order it entered, it may do so on its own motion and enter a different order.” However, Defendants do not point to a change of law that would warrant the Court to reconsider its February 15, 2022 order. Rather, Defendants indicate that the motion is brought due to “new facts and circumstances.” (Mot. at p. 9:15-17.) 

Even if the Court overlooked the procedural defects of the instant motion, the Court does not find reconsideration to be warranted. Defendants appear to assert that reconsideration is warranted because the original complaint was amended to, inter alia, change the name of the plaintiff from Power House, LLC to High Power House, LLC. But the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the change of plaintiff’s name does not impact the Court’s previous determination that a temporary restraining order was warranted.  

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion for reconsideration is denied.

DATED:  October 4, 2022                            

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court