Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2018-01024718, Date: 2022-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Cross-Defendant’s (Forespar Products, Corp.) Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Guy Foresman’s Motions to Compel Responses to Written Discovery (Motion), filed on 5-31-22 under ROA No. 377, is DENIED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (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.”

In re Marriage of Herr (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1468 (Herr) explains, “Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 requires that a party seeking reconsideration do so ‘within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order. . . .’ [Citation.] A motion for reconsideration must be based on new or different facts, circumstances or law [citation], and facts of which the party seeking reconsideration was aware at the time of the original ruling are not ‘new or different.’ [Citation.] In addition, a party must provide a satisfactory explanation for failing to offer the evidence in the first instance.  [Citation.]” Pinela v. Nieman Marcus Group, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 227, 237 (Pinela), states, “If a court at any time determines that there has been a change of law that warrants it to reconsider a prior order it entered, it may do so on its own motion and enter a different order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (c).) Even without a change of law, a trial court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to reconsider an interim ruling. [Citation.]” (Footnote 5 omitted.)

Here, Cross-Defendant has not demonstrated the existence of new facts, circumstances, or law under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. The Motion states, “Forespar respectfully requests the Court reconsider its Order granting Guy Foresman’s (“Guy’s”) Motions to Compel because there is a new fact that warrants denial of these motions. Specifically, Guy served the Written Discovery in his capacity as co-trustee. Guy subsequently filed a motion for leave to amend his cross-complaint in order to change the capacity in which he was suing from co-trustee to beneficiary. Upon the granting of the motion, Guy, as co-trustee, ceased to be a party to this proceeding. . . . Guy’s decision to abandon the cross-complaint as co-trustee and instead proceed as beneficiary renders the Written Discovery moot because it was not served by the current cross-complainant, i.e., a party to the case.” (Motion; 2:7-12.)

Kleitman v. Superior Court (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 324, 330 (Kleitman), states, “Management of discovery lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and, therefore, a discovery order is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. [Citation.]” Cummings v. Stanley (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 493, 501 (Cummings), states, “A lack of standing is a jurisdictional defect to an action that mandates dismissal. [Citations.]” Blumhorst v. Jewish Family Services of Los Angeles (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 993, 1000 (Blumhorst), explains, “A litigant's standing to sue is a threshold issue to be resolved before the matter can be reached on the merits. [Citation.] ‘If we were to conclude that plaintiff did not have standing to maintain the action, not having been personally damaged by the defendants' conduct, then there would be no need to address the merits of her cause. Equally wasteful of judicial resources would be a resolution on the merits without reaching the standing issue.’ [Citation.] We will not address the merits of litigation when the plaintiff lacks standing, because ‘ “California courts have no power . . . to render advisory opinions or give declaratory relief.” ’ [Citations.]”

Also, as discussed in the court’s 5-17-22 Minute Order, Cross-Complainant does not provide authority that requires the court to stay discovery when there is an issue of standing.

Therefore, the court DENIES Cross-Defendant’s (Forespar Products, Corp.) Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Guy Foresman’s Motions to Compel Responses to Written Discovery filed on 5-31-22 under ROA No. 377. 

Cross-Complainant is to give notice.