What is a Motion to Reconsider?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Reconsider

Recent Rulings on Motion to Reconsider

KATHERINE BIGELOW VS WESTERN ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff’s instant motion is not a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition. In ordering Plaintiff to sit for deposition, the Court did not address the scope of the deposition and whether Defendant should be limited in its questioning of Plaintiff. As such, the Court will rule on the merits of the motion.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JEFFREY LOOPER, ET AL. VS FOREST LAWN MEMORIAL-PARKS ASSOCIATION D/B/A FOREST LAWN MEMORIAL-PARKS & MORTUARIES

CONCLUSION AND ORDER Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is denied. Plaintiffs shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court. DATED: September 28, 2020 ___________________________ Stephen I. Goorvitch Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LORI H VS JOSEPH EDWARD BEEZY, ET AL.

Stephens (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 673, 681 (noting that a “motion asking the trial court to decide the same matter previously ruled on is a motion for reconsideration”).) In a motion to strike punitive damages brought over a year ago, Defendants made this same argument: that CCP section 425.13 barred Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim. The Court found the motion meritless with respect to Beezy.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

PATINO V. FAIR RIVAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

Motion for Reconsideration – DENIED Before the Court is a “Motion for Reconsideration” filed by Plaintiff Penny Patino (“Patino”). At its core, Patino’s motion asks the Court to reconsider its Final Statement of Decision on the first phase of this bifurcated trial and to enter judgment in her favor. The Motion is denied. The procedural history of this case is long and somewhat complex.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS. ALAI

Alai, M.D.’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. Defendant Nili N. Alai, M.D. (“Alai”) moves for the court to reconsider its February 24, 2020, order denying Alai’s anti-SLAPP motion. However, Alai has not presented any new or different facts, circumstances, or law that would require a different result. (See CCP § 1008(a).) Therefore, the ruling on the anti-SLAPP stands. Prevailing party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

JP WILSON FAMILY LLC ET AL VS ROBERT SHUMAKE ET AL

On September 3, 2020, Shumake filed a motion for reconsideration of the Michigan Court of Appeals decision. An answer was due on September 17. https://courts.michigan.gov/opinions_orders/case_search/Pages/default.aspx?SearchType=1&CaseNumber=350225&CourtType_CaseNumber=2 See also Declaration of Darwyn P. Fair ¶ 20, Exhibit 11. Based on the pending appeal, the court will grant a stay of enforcement.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

SOCORRO COBARRUVIAS VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT ET

Motion for Reconsideration On 1/31/20, Plaintiff filed this motion for reconsideration, setting it for hearing on 3/17/20. Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the 1/13/20 order. Plaintiff moves for reconsideration claiming (a) Defendant noticed the motion for 2/13/20, not 1/13/20, and (b) Plaintiff provided responses on 1/09/20. The Court has reviewed the previously filed motions.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

MATEOS VS. IEC CORPORATION WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION CORPORATION

Not a Motion for Reconsideration Velasquez claims this motion is an improper motion for reconsideration because the Court already decided he was an aggrieved employee when denying IEC’s motion to deny PAGA representative status. He is incorrect. In its motion, IEC offered two bases for denying representative status to Velasquez and his co-plaintiff Richard Mateos: first, that they were not aggrieved employees, and second, that the case would be unmanageable. (See Pl.’s RJN, Ex. E.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

JP COHEN LLC VS RYAN A CHAICHI

Thus, Chaichi’s motion for reconsideration is denied. Having denied Chaichi’s motion on this basis, the court does not reach the remainder of the parties’ arguments. Conclusion Ryan A. Chaichi’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Defendants are to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

PETERS VS CITY OF BEAUMONT CALIFORNIA

The fact that a motion for reconsideration may have been pending when judgment was entered does not restore this power to the trial court.” (APRI Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (Schatteman) (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 176, 182.) There does not appear to be any basis for reconsideration.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

PETER CHOE, ET AL. VS SUNG HYUN CHUNG

On the same date, Chung’s new counsel filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s July 31, 2020 order (dismissal and sanctions) based on new facts under CCP § 1008; based on neglect of Defendant’s prior counsel under CCP § 473; irregularity in a proceeding under CCP § 657; and under the court’s inherent power to set aside interim orders. On September 14, 2020 Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On September 15, 2020, Defendant filed a reply.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

ZHOIE PEREZ, AN INDIVIDUAL VS EDDUIN ZELAYA GRUNFELD, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

On March 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s March 9, 2020 ruling with respect to the demurrer and motion to strike filed by School and Congregation Defendants with respect to the SAC. On March 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s March 9, 2020 ruling with respect to the demurrer and motion to strike filed by SPS with respect to the SAC. On June 26, 2020, the Court ruled on the respective motions for reconsideration.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ANDREA GALANTE VS JASON A WEISS ET AL

Procedure: Galante argues that the motion is procedurally improper because it is an untimely motion for reconsideration.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

GENESIS MEDIA LLC VS OWNZONES MEDIA NETWORK INC ET AL

Conclusion Alex Nahai’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Defendants are to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JAIMIE VALENZUELA, ET AL. VS MARTIN ANDALUZ ABARCA, ET AL.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration Legal Standard “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

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ROY WEATHERUP VS THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY RESTAURANTS INC

In sum, the Court denies the motion for reconsideration. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

TANYA CRUZ VS SKATELAND ENTERPRISES INC

Motion for Reconsideration A Notice of Settlement was filed on 9/16/20, such that the court presumes the motion for reconsideration is now moot. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is taken off-calendar. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

RYAN HARPER VS DAVID ZISLIS

On March 13, 2020, Plaintiffs filed this opposed motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration: DENIED Judicial Notice: The Court will take judicial notice of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1, the December 11, 2019 tentative ruling pursuant to Evidence Code section 452 (d), official court records.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

MARITZA LUCERO ERNST VS EFRAIN DEL REAL

Motion for Reconsideration On 5/28/20, Ernst filed this motion for reconsideration. In the motion, she correctly notes that her prior application was supported by her declaration, which was filed on the same day as the application itself. The Court notes that timely filed papers sometimes are not processed and uploaded into its online system, and the Court particularly notes that this was an ongoing problem in early March, likely due to the coronavirus pandemic. The motion for reconsideration is granted.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

MONTIEL V. NEWPORT FOOT AND ANKLE CENTER, INC.

Plaintiff’s (Yolanda Montiel) Motion to Reconsider/Revoke/Amend and/or Modify the Court’s February 4, 2020 Order Ruling re: Motions to Compel Discovery (Motion), filed on 2-14-20 under ROA No. 337, is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK VS. MILLER

Almost immediately thereafter, the Defendant filed his motion for reconsideration/vacation of the summary judgment order. A review of the Defendant’s motion to vacate the summary judgment does not disclose that the defendant is claiming a full defense to the Plaintiff’s causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CHUNG & ASSOCIATES LLC ET AL VS XAVIER RUFFIN ET AL

On March 22, 2019, the court denied Defendants’ motion to reconsider the court’s February 26, 2019 order denying Defendants’ motion to vacate terminating sanctions. On September 25, 2019, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for issue sanctions, finding that the damages amount Defendants received from Cashmere’s customers are correct and presumed to be the proper amount of damages. On October 6, 2019, the court denied Defendants’ motion to reconsider the September 25, 2019 order on issue sanctions.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

PATRICIA A. MCALLISTER VS SHADI MORISSET, ET AL.

Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of that order on May 6, 2019, which the Court denied on November 20, 2019. (11/20/19 Minute Order.) On December 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of that order. Defendant Public Agency filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal on May 13, 2020. On September 14, 2020, Defendant Public Agency filed a Notice to Take Motion to Dismiss Off Calendar. Accordingly, this Motion is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

EMILY BOATMAN, AN INDIVIDUAL VS MICHAEL DOE 1 LAST NAME UNKNOWN AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Conclusion For these reasons, the court DENIES the motion for reconsideration.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

IN RE MADISON ROGERS

Motion: for reconsideration of 2018 order approving a minor’s compromise in a dismissed case Tentative Ruling: To deny and dismiss the petition with prejudice. Explanation: 1. No Authority for Modification Under Case Cited The court in 321 Henderson analyzed the anti-assignment language in the settlements and insurance policies at issue in light of California Commercial Code section 9408.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 161     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.