Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22STCV09752, Date: 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09752    Hearing Date: January 5, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

HELEN WANG,

                   Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

SOUDARAM CHANDRASHEKAR,

 

                   Defendant(s),

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO.: 22STCV09752

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

 

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

January 5, 2023

 

I.       INTRODUCTION

          On March 21, 2022, plaintiff Helen Wang (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Soudaram Chandrashekar (“Defendant”) arising from an automobile incident that occurred on September 19, 2018.  (Compl., MV-1.)  Plaintiff asserts causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence. 

          On July 7, 2022, Defendant filed a demurrer arguing that Plaintiff’s action is barred by the statute of limitations.  At the hearing on August 4, 2022, the Court continued the hearing to the present date to allow Plaintiff time to find representation.  On September 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a letter stating that she has been unable to find representation and requested another continuance.  On October 3, 2022, the Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend. 

          On October 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed this motion for reconsideration pursuant to CCP 1008(a). 

II.      LEGAL STANDARDS

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.)

III.     DISCUSSION

          Plaintiff moves for reconsideration on the grounds that the Court failed to recognize that 2020 was a leap year and thus had 366 days instead of 365.  Plaintiff argues that due to the additional day, the statute of limitations ran on March 19, 2022, making her complaint filed on March 21, 2022, timely.  Plaintiff also requests an opportunity to amend the complaint to add allegations that her communications with Defendant’s insurance carrier on March 18, 2022, misled her into believing that a settlement was forthcoming and that she still had time to file a complaint.  Plaintiff states in a declaration that on March 18, 2022, the claims adjuster let her know that “while [she doesn’t] have much time left to file, [she] still ha[s] some time and, in the meantime, [they] could still negotiate the settlement for the accident.”  (Wang Decl., ¶ 6.) 

          Plaintiff’s calculation of the statute of limitations is incorrect.  As stated in the Court’s previous order, CCP 338 required Plaintiff to file this suit within 3 years of September 19, 2018, which is September 19, 2021.  The fact that February had an extra day in 2020 does not change the fact that the statute of limitations was only tolled by Emergency Rule 9 from April 6, 2020 to October 1, 2020 (which is 178 days, not 179 as erroneously noted by the Court in its prior ruling).  This means that Plaintiff should have filed this action by Wednesday, March 16, 2022.  

If the statute of limitations expired on March 16, 2022, any statements by the claims adjuster on March 18, 2022, approximating the amount of time Plaintiff had left to file her complaint would be irrelevant.  Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled based on this representation is meritless. 

Further, Plaintiff does not explain why she previously failed to bring any arguments regarding equitable tolling to the Court’s attention.  Defendant filed this demurrer on July 7, 2022, and the hearing on this demurrer was originally scheduled for August 4, 2022.  After granting a continuance so that Plaintiff could obtain representation, Plaintiff had nearly 3 months to marshal her arguments and evidence to present them to the Court at the October 3, 2022, hearing.  That Plaintiff failed to appreciate the existence of a legal argument is not grounds for reconsideration because a motion for reconsideration must be brought based on “new or different facts, circumstances or law.” 

IV.     CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s 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.