Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV27484, Date: 2023-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV27484    Hearing Date: December 5, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On February 2, 2023, Plaintiff I-Ching Nancy Chuang, proceeding in pro per, filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant The Regents of the University of California (erroneously also named as UCLA Health Systems and Ronald Reagan Hospital Department of Pharmacy).

On May 10, 2023, Defendant filed a demurrer and motion to strike.

On August 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed both a Notice of Limited Scope Representation and a Substitution of Counsel, identifying Michael J. Callon as Plaintiff’s new legal representation.

On August 22, 2023, neither Plaintiff nor her counsel appeared at the hearing on Defendant’s motions.  The Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend and granted Defendant’s motion to strike without leave to amend.  Plaintiff’s FAC was dismissed with prejudice.

On August 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration.

Plaintiff’s motion must be denied for at least three reasons.

First, the motion’s caption identifies Plaintiff as being in pro per, but the motion is signed by Mason Yost.  Attorney Yost is not Plaintiff’s counsel of record.  Attorney Yost declares that he is of counsel to The Law Office of Michael Callon, and he agreed to appear at the August 22 hearing.  However, the Notice of Limited Scope Representation and Substitution of Counsel identify only Michael J. Callon as an individual, not his law office.  Plaintiff has not filed another Substitution of Counsel, and Attorney Callon has not moved to withdraw.  Accordingly, the motion was improperly filed by either Plaintiff in pro per while represented by counsel (according to the caption) or an attorney who is not Plaintiff’s counsel of record (according to the signature block).

Second, the motion does not meet the standards for reconsideration.  A party moving for reconsideration of an order shall state by affidavit what application was made before, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to be shown.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd (a).)  “[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.”  (Glade v. Glade (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1457.)  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.)

Plaintiff does not present sufficient new or different facts or circumstances for reconsideration.  Plaintiff argues that she should not be penalized by Attorney Yost’s failure to appear at the August 22 hearing, and “when no one appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, the Court probably concluded that Plaintiff did not care enough to even appear in court.”  (Motion at p. 3.)  However, it is not the failure to appear that caused the Court to grant the motions and dismiss this action.  The Court ruled on the motions fully on the merits.

Third, the Court determined, on the merits, that Plaintiff would be unable to amend her FAC to state a claim against Defendant.  The Court found that Plaintiff’s common law claims against Defendant were barred by Government Code section 815 and the exclusive remedy of workers’ compensation.  The Court also found that Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages was barred by Government Code section 818.  Plaintiff argues that “[w]ith professional legal advice, Plaintiff stands a better chance of either prevailing on the demurrer and motion strike, or at least obtaining leave to amend the complaint.  With the assistance of counsel she might be able to draft a more ‘bullet proof’ complaint.”  (Motion at p. 3.)  But even with the assistance of counsel, Plaintiff cannot overcome the Government Code section that bars her common law claims for “General Negligence” and “Intentional Tort.”  Plaintiff does not explain the nature of her anticipated amendment and what she would add to the complaint.  The Court dismissed this action because amendment would be futile.  Counsel’s appearance at the hearing, after the motions had been fully briefed and considered, would not cause the Court to change this ruling.

For these reasons, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 5th day of December 2023