Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 21STCV23881, Date: 2022-12-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV23881    Hearing Date: December 21, 2022    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   December 21, 2022                                        

CASE NAME:           Marlin D. Samuel v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 

CASE NO.:                21STCV23881

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Marlin D Samuel

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.      An order granting the motion for reconsideration

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On June 28, 2021, Plaintiff Marlin D. Samuel (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant.”) The complaint is for one cause of action breach of contract. The complaint alleges that an oral contract was entered into between Plaintiff and Defendant during a hearing, where Plaintiff read terms of the contract and Defendant’s employee accepted the offer.

On September 17, 2021, Defendant filed an Answer.

On August 16, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, which was GRANTED on September 12, 2022.

On September 13, 2022, Notice of the Court’s ruling on Motion for Judgment on the pleadings was served by mail.

The current Motion for Reconsideration was filed on September 26, 2022. Defendant’s Opposition was filed on December 8, 2022.

On November 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal.

LEGAL STANDARD:

CCP section 1008(a) states 

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. 

A trial court has discretion with respect to granting a motion for reconsideration.  (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212.)

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Court’s ruling from September 12, 2022, on Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

Plaintiff argues that there were procedural issues, like with service. Additionally, Plaintiff argues that there are new circumstances, which require the current motion. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the Court erred in ruling that the language “Okay. Noted. Anything else” language was not sufficient to constitute a contract. Lastly, Plaintiff argues that they will be prejudiced by the September 12, 2022, ruling.

Defendant raises two arguments. First, the Court no longer has jurisdiction to rule on this motion, both when the matter was dismissed on September 19, 2022, and once Plaintiff filed an appeal on November 16, 2022. Second, Plaintiff has failed to identify new facts, circumstances or law, as required under CCP § 1008(a).

Defendant is correct. The Court no longer has jurisdiction to reconsider ruling on judgment on the pleadings once notice of appeal is filed. “Generally, the filing of a notice of appeal “divests the trial court of further jurisdiction in the cause.”” (Avenida San Juan Partnership v. City of San Clemente (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1267.) Even had Plaintiff not filed an appeal, Plaintiff’s motion lacks any new facts, circumstances, or law, and is merely a restatement of Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s initial Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Nowhere in the Motion for Reconsideration is any new law or circumstance brought up.

Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

CONCLUSION:

            For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             December 21, 2022                 _________________________________                                                                                                                  Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court