Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV00284, Date: 2023-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV00284    Hearing Date: March 18, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

MARTI MACKEY,

                   Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

BRECKENRIDGE PROPERTY FUND 2016, LLC,

 

                   Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

     CASE NO.:  23AHCV00284

 

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

 

Dept. 3

8:30 a.m.

March 18, 2024

 

 

 

 

I.            INTRODUCTION

On February 8, 2023, plaintiff Marti Mackey filed this action against defendant Breckenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC (“Defendant”) asserting a cause of action for adverse possession. Plaintiff alleges that they have resided at 540 N. Marengo Avenue, #3 in Pasadena, California (the “Property”) for six years and has been in open, exclusive, hostile, adverse, and actual possession. (Compl., ¶ 1.) On March 6, 2023, Mackey named The Legacy Trust and Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., Trustee of WAMY Trust as Does 1 and 2.

On December 20, 2023, the Court issued an order sustaining Defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend (the “December 20 Order”).

On January 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion for reconsideration of the December 20 Order.

On March 5, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition brief.

On March 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply brief.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

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.)  

III.        DISCUSSION

In the December 20 Order, the Court addressed and denied Plaintiff’s request to amend the complaint to add a claim for elder abuse. In this motion, Plaintiff requests the Court reconsider the December 20 Order and issue a new order which removes this discussion. Plaintiff requests this modification because “it may prejudice further actions needed in regard to the [Property].” (Motion, p. 7.) In her reply brief, Plaintiff appears to seek an opportunity to amend her complaint to assert a claim for elder abuse (although whom these claims are directed is unclear because Plaintiff refers to multiple entities including Wedgewood, Mark Bosco, National Default Servicing Corporation, and “Tiffany & Bosco”, but not Defendant). Notably, as Defendant points out in its opposition brief, Plaintiff offers no new facts, circumstances, or law in support of her motion that were not available to her at the time the demurrer was heard. Therefore, reconsideration is improper.

IV.         CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

Dated this 18th day of March, 2024

 

 

 

 

       William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

 

 

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.