Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 20STCV49702, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV49702 Hearing Date: January 13, 2023 Dept: 47
Tentative Ruling
Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47
HEARING DATE: January 13, 2023 TRIAL DATE: February 28, 2023
CASE: Hermozo Textile, LLC v. Trendy JS’, et al.
CASE NO.: 20STCV49702
MOTION FOR ORDER DEEMING TRUTH OF MATTERS IN REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION AS ADMITTED 
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Hun Young An
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Hermozo Textile, LLC
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
This is an action for breach of contract that was filed on December 29, 2020. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay for fabric goods sold by Plaintiff and accepted by Defendants.
Defendant Hun Young An moves for reconsideration of the Court’s November 7, 2022 order deeming Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions propounded to Defendant as admitted.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
DISCUSSION:
Defendant Hun Young An moves for reconsideration of the Court’s November 7, 2022 order deeming Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions propounded to Defendant as
admitted.
Legal Standard
Code of Civil Procedure § 1008 provides, in relevant part:
(a) 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.
* * *
(d) A violation of this section may be punished as a contempt and with sanctions as allowed by Section 128.7. In addition, an order made contrary to this section may be revoked by the judge or commissioner who made it, or vacated by a judge of the court in which the action or proceeding is pending.
(e) This section specifies the court’s jurisdiction with regard to applications for reconsideration of its orders and renewals of previous motions, and applies to all applications to reconsider any order of a judge or court, or for the renewal of a previous motion, whether the order deciding the previous matter or motion is interim or final. No application to reconsider any order or for the renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to this section.
(Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a), (d), (e) (bold emphasis added).)
In connection with a motion for reconsideration, there must be “a satisfactory explanation for failing to provide the evidence earlier, which can only be described as a strict requirement of diligence.” (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690; see also Pazderka v. Caballeros Dimas Alang, Inc. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 658 [“With regard to new facts, ‘the 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.’”].)
Timing
As stated above, Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(a) requires that this motion be filed within 10 days of the date of service of written notice of entry of the order at issue. The declaration of Ryan A. Ellis states that written notice of the entry of the order on the Motion to Deem Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions as Admitted was provided to Defendant by email on November 8, 2022. (Declaration of Ryan Ellis ISO Mot. ¶ 2 Exh. 1.) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, which extends the deadline to file this motion by two court days for electronic service, the tenth day plus two court days would have been Sunday, November 20, 2022. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6.) Therefore, the last day to file this motion was Monday, November 21, 2022, the date this motion was filed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 12.) This motion is therefore timely.
Analysis
Defendant Hun Young An moves for reconsideration of the Court’s November 7, 2022 order deeming Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions propounded to Defendant as
admitted. Defendant contends that the new or different facts that warrant reconsideration are that full, complete and verified responses to Plaintiff’s requests for admissions, without objections, were served on October 18, 2022. (Ellis Decl. ¶ 3 Exh. 2.) Even if that is true, Defendant offers no justification for the failure to respond to the original motion, nor does Defendant offer any explanation for Defendant’s submission on the Court’s tentative ruling at the November 7, 2022 hearing. Had Defendant provided such an explanation at the time, the Court would have been inclined to grant this motion, in consideration of the scope of the admissions and their negative effect on Defendant’s position in the case. However, absent such evidence, the Court cannot conclude that Defendant has shown sufficient diligence to warrant reconsideration.
CONCLUSION:
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
Moving Party to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 13, 2023. ___________________________________
Theresa M. Traber
Judge of the Superior Court
Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.