Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV09367, Date: 2022-08-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV09367 Hearing Date: August 2, 2022 Dept: 27
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
|
Plaintiff(s), vs.
RAYMOND WOODY, et al.,
Defendant(s). |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAY 24, 2022 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL
Dept. 27 1:30 p.m. August 2, 2022 |
INTRODUCTION
On March 6, 2020, Plaintiff Maria Lopez and Johnathan Velasquez (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendant Raymond Woody (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. On September 3, 2021, this matter was called for trial, but after there were no appearances by or for either side, Plaintiffs’ complaint was dismissed without prejudice.
On March 7, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside dismissal contending the failure to appear for trial was the result of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s mistake, neglect, inadvertence and surprise. The Court denied this motion on May 24, 2022, as untimely.
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 court acts in excess of jurisdiction when it grants a motion to reconsider that is not based upon “new or different facts, circumstances or law.” (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1499.) Motions for reconsideration are restricted to circumstances where a party offers the Court some fact or circumstance not previously considered, and some valid reason for not offering it earlier. (Ibid.) Moreover, there is a strict requirement of diligence, which means the moving party must present a satisfactory explanation for failing to provide the evidence or different facts earlier. (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690.) The burden under Section 1008 is comparable to that of a party seeking a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence: the information must be such that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced it at trial. (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212-213.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs argue that the Court should reconsider its earlier ruling which denied their motion to set aside the order of dismissal as untimely. Plaintiffs claim that their counsel had filed the motion on March 4, 2022, but that the Court’s website was “out of order on that date, and thus the motion was filed or received by the court on March 7, 2022.” (Motion, 6:12-14.) Plaintiffs’ counsel had additionally tried to fax file the motion on March 4, 2022, which was also unsuccessful.
There is no evidence supporting Plaintiff’s claim that the Court’s website had malfunctioned on March 4, 2022. Furthermore, this evidence is not “new” and Plaintiffs offer no reason why this evidence could not have been presented to the Court earlier.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs’ 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 SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.