Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV23221, Date: 2023-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV23221    Hearing Date: December 13, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

This matter is before Department 3 of the Alhambra Courthouse for the limited purpose of this motion for reconsideration because Judge William A. Crowfoot, now assigned to Department 3 in the Alhambra Courthouse, issued the order underlying the motion while presiding in Department 27 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The case remains in Department 27 of the Spring Street Courthouse for all other purposes.

          Plaintiff Angelina Yu (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order vacating or modifying the Court’s order dated November 14, 2022, granting defendants Coach Max Corp. and Commerce Casino Club, Inc.’s (collectively, “Defendants”) motion for sanctions and issuing sanctions against her counsel of record (the “Sanctions Order”). In the Sanctions Order, the Court imposed sanctions against Martin Jerisat, Ying Xu, and the Law Offices of Eric K. Chen, jointly, in the amount of $1,120. On November 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion for reconsideration.

          Defendants filed an opposition brief on October 19, 2023.

          No reply brief is on file with the Court.

          By way of background, the Court issued sanctions against Plaintiff for abusive conduct, including issuing a second deposition subpoena for a witness without a court order and kicking defense counsel out of a remote deposition. Plaintiff brings this motion on the grounds that an objection to the deposition subpoena was never served and that the deponent’s appearance made any objections moot. Plaintiff also argues that it did not act in bad faith.

          Code of Civil Procedure 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. (Id.) 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.)

Here, the Court cannot grant Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration because it is not based on new facts, circumstances, or law. As Defendants point out in their opposition brief, Plaintiff does not explain how any of the events described within the motion were not previously brought before the Court, even though they clearly predated the hearing.

Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

Dated this 13th day of December, 2023

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@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.