Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV10036, Date: 2024-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV10036    Hearing Date: December 5, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     December 5, 2024                  TRIAL DATE: January 7, 2025

CASE:                         Bruce Dwain Copeland v. Amy Pham

CASE NO.:                 22STCV10036           

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Bruce Dwain Copeland, in propria persona

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant Amy Pham

CASE HISTORY:

·         03/23/22: Complaint filed.

·         03/14/23: First Amended Complaint filed.

·         05/24/23: Plaintiff deemed vexatious litigant.

·         07/05/23: Notice of Appeal filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action for quiet title and injunctive relief. Plaintiff contends that Defendant is fraudulently claiming ownership of the property in which Plaintiff resides and which he contends he owns.

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Court’s October 30, 2024 ruling denying Plaintiff’s premature Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Stated in Requests for Admissions as Admitted.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Court’s October 30, 2024 ruling denying Plaintiff’s premature Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Stated in Requests for Admissions as Admitted.

            Motions for reconsideration are governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. This statute 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).) No affidavit was provided with this motion, and, for that reason alone, the Court would be empowered to deny the motion pursuant to subdivision (a). That said, Plaintiff’s moving papers contain a sufficiently plain statement of the issues that the Court will address the merits of the motion.

            On October 30, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Stated in Requests for Admissions on the grounds that (1) Plaintiff did not demonstrate that he had properly served either the underlying requests or the motion itself and (2) Plaintiff’s motion was premature because it was filed only 11 days after the requests were purportedly served, not 30 days as required by statute.

            Plaintiff asserts that the Court’s October 30 ruling was in error because the Defendant had not served responses to the Requests for Admissions before the October 30 hearing. There was no error. Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 subdivision (b) authorizes the propounding party to move to deem the truth of the matters stated in the requests for admissions if the party to whom the requests are directed “fails to serve a timely response[.]” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280 [emphasis added].) Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.250 states that the party to whom the requests are directed has 30 days from service of the requests to respond. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.250(a).) Plaintiff, by filing his motion merely 11 days after the date he purports to have served the requests, did not provide Defendant the 30 days to respond to which she was entitled by law, and Defendant therefore did not fail to serve a timely response to the requests. Consequently, Plaintiff was not entitled to an order deeming the truth of the matters stated in the requests based on his premature and procedurally improper motion.

            Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated December 5, 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.