Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV04765, Date: 2024-03-21 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 21STCV04765    Hearing Date: March 21, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

 

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

 

 

HEARING DATE:     March 21, 2024                      JUDGMENT: September 13, 2023

                                                          

CASE:                         Robert Ware v. Department of Public Social Services; County of Los Angeles, et al.

 

CASE NO.:                 21STCV04765

 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

 

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Robert Ware

 

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant County of Los Angeles

 

CASE HISTORY:

 

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

           

            This is an employment action in which Plaintiff alleges discrimination, harassment, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent concealment arising from his employment with the Department of Public Social Services.

 

            Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Court’s ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment issued August 8, 2023.

           

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

            Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

            Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Court’s order granting summary judgment for Defendants issued August 8, 2023.

 

            Code of Civil Procedure section 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).)

 

            The Court issued its ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Judgment, on August 8, 2023. Notice of that ruling was served by Defendant County on August 21, 2023 by mail. (Notice of Ruling filed August 21, 2023.) Plaintiff filed a first Notice of Motion for Reconsideration on August 16, 2023, before notice of the ruling was given, but withdrew that motion on September 8, 2023. (See August 16, 2023 Notice of Motion.) Plaintiff states that he served the operative Notice of Motion for Reconsideration on September 23, 2023, ten days after entry of judgment and 32 days after service of notice of the ruling which was challenged. (Declaration of Robert Ware ISO Reply ¶ 3.) Plaintiff states in his reply declaration that he attempted to file the notice of motion on that date, but that the filing was rejected, and the Notice of Motion was only accepted on October 24, 2023. (Id. ¶¶ 4-6.) Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities was not filed until February 23, 2024.

 

            A motion for reconsideration is only available to challenge the Court’s interlocutory rulings and may not be heard after entry of judgment. (See Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 187, 192.) Although Plaintiff’s initial Notice of Motion might have been served and filed within 10 days of notice of the August 8 ruling, he elected to withdraw that filing, and Plaintiff does not address it either in his moving papers or in his reply brief. Further, even accepting Plaintiff’s representation that he attempted to file the operative Notice of Motion on September 23, such a filing would nevertheless have been both outside the 10-day statutory window and after entry of judgment. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore doubly untimely and the Court is without jurisdiction to hear it.

 

            Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

 

            Moving Party to give notice.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

Dated:  March 21, 2024                                  ___________________________________

                                                                                    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.