What is a Motion to Reconsider?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Reconsider

Recent Rulings on Motion to Reconsider

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Since no motion for reconsideration or to vacate the judgment were filed, the Court agrees that the time to appeal the judgment entered in this matter expired on March 20, 2020. Accordingly, the Court cannot revisit the issue of defendant’s entitlement to attorneys’ fees under the judgment. Since plaintiff has not challenged the reasonableness of the fees requested, the Court will award defendant attorneys fees in the amount of $7,350.

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2020

VADIM MIESEGAES V. STEPHANIE CLENDENIN

For these reasons, the motion for reconsideration is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Finally, Defendant’s opposition points out that any proper challenge to the award—either by a motion for reconsideration or appeal—has not been filed. Even if the Motion were to be considered a motion for reconsideration, it does not meet the statutory requirements of Code of Civil section 1008. It was not made within 10 days’ service of the attorney’s fees award, nor is it based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

OLUFEMI OGUNTOLU VS NINA C MONTOYA

The court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte motion, as well as the subsequently filed ex parte motion for reconsideration. A memorandum exceeding the page limit “must be . . . considered in the same manner as a late-filed paper.” (Id. at (g).) As such, the court has discretion to refuse to consider these papers in ruling on the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1300(d).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

RIDGE CONLAN, ET AL. VS ROCKIN' RESCUE, ET AL.

The motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BRAD WAISBREN ET AL VS HEGER INDUSTRIAL ET AL

On February 10, 2020 Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for reconsideration of the court’s January 31, 2020 ruling. No opposition to has been filed.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

DONALD GRINDEN VS PAUL FALLAT, ET AL.

Based on this record, the ten-day period to file a motion to reconsider began on that date. That being the case, the last date for Plaintiff was January 27, 2020. This motion was filed February 6, 2020. It is untimely, and the Court must deny the motion.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

MOJAB V. LINEBERGER, ET AL.

However, on the same date that the FAC was filed, Plaintiff also filed a notice of appeal of the November 22, 2019 order denying Plaintiff’s application for relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, in which Plaintiff sought relief from the denial of his late claim petition from OCFA and of the January 24, 2020 order denying Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

NICHOLAS LEVENSTEIN VS JEROME CHANG, ET AL.,

CASE NUMBER: SC128174 MOTION: Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and motion for attorney fees motion for reconsideration Background This lawsuit was filed in October 2017. Plaintiff alleged that he served defendants on October 11, 2017 and obtained an entry of default on November 22, 2017. On November 13, 2017, however, defendant Jerome Chang received an automatic extension to file a demurrer so his answer was not due until December 20, 2017.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

JIANG QI VS BLUESTAR EXPRESS GROUP INC.

Additionally, “after entry of judgment, a trial court has no . . . power to rule on a motion for reconsideration. ‘A court may reconsider its order granting or denying a motion and may even reconsider or alter its judgment so long as judgment has not yet been entered. Once judgment has been entered, however the court may not reconsider it and loses its unrestricted power to change the judgment.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

NGUYEN VS. TRAN

Plaintiff’s motion is a motion for reconsideration. It asks the Court to strike Cross-complainants Andrew D. Weiss and Sunny Duong’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Served on Tony Nguyen admitted and Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories. Plaintiff has made two previous unsuccessful requests for the same relief. (See ROAs 579 and 597). The motion also asks the Court to vacate its 2/6/20 ruling on those motions.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

TATE V. GO, ET AL.

Motion for Appointment of Counsel; Motion for Reconsideration TENTATIVE RULING Parties to appear. CourtCall approved.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

HIRAM ASH VS JACK IN THE BOX INC

Motion for Reconsideration On 2/25/20, Plaintiff filed this motion for reconsideration of the 2/04/20 order granting Defendant’s motion to transfer venue. Plaintiff argues there are new facts, circumstances, or law that justify reconsideration of the prior order.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

MILES JOHNSON VS LABREA HOTEL LLC

First, since the prior motion was denied, Plaintiff was required to file a motion for reconsideration pursuant to CCP § 1008. The Court notes that Plaintiff apparently filed a motion for reconsideration but took that motion off calendar. Second, CCP § 473(d) does not constitute grounds for the requested relief because the dismissal is not void on its face. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to set aside dismissal is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

ROGER VOLODARSKY VS GRAHAM GIBSON

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LOLA VISUAL EFFECTS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS BRETT RATNER, AN INDIVIDUAL

On March 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s February 25, 2020 order. LEGAL STANDARD A party moving for reconsideration of an order must present new facts, circumstances or law in order to grant a motion for reconsideration. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd.(a); see also Mink v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1342.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

SMITH, THOMAS ET AL VS. GUY, BRUCE ET AL

Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied as premature under Ca. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1590(b) because there is no Order or Judgment for the Court to reconsider at this time. The Court will hear from counsel with regard to the Court's Indicated Ruling after Court Trial. The Court has received a request for Statement of Damages and the Court's deadline to issue a proposed Statement of Damages is July 13, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

OSHEEN HAGHNAZARIAN ET AL VS ALAN ROMERO ET AL

The present motion is an untimely and defective motion for reconsideration of this court’s prior order. The motion is DENIED. MOTION TO DECLARE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT Romero moves to declare all Plaintiffs in this action vexatious litigants. (Motion at p. 2.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

CLODA JONES VS NAOMI CAMPBELL, ET AL.

Therefore, the Court may not consider the instant Motion for Reconsideration. The Motion for Reconsideration is MOOT. Defendants to give notice. MOTIONS TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL Cal. Code of Civ.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

BARBARA DONAHUE VS DARCI CANDIDA MOBLEY WRIGHT

The court treats this as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. In their opposition, Defendant argues that the Court should not consider this motion for reconsideration because Plaintiff has not complied with Civil Code section 1008(a). Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to present the court with an affidavit.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

LILI TALEB, ET AL. VS THURMAN INTERIM CALIFORNIA LLC, AS LANDLORD OF THE COMPLEX, ET AL.

., Case No. 19STCV21671 Tentative Ruling re: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration Plaintiffs request the Court reconsider its award of discovery sanctions issued on March 11, 2010 in favor of Defendant Thurman Interim in the amount of $2,655.00. The motion is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

AASIR AZZARMI VS WENDY CHAU, ET AL.

App. 4th 1233, 1236 (“after entry of judgment, a trial court has no further power to rule on a motion for reconsideration”); Betz v. Pankow (1993) 16 Cal. App. 4th 931, 937-38 (“Section 1008 is directed to interim rulings. Thus, a motion for reconsideration may only be considered before final judgment is entered and while the case is still pending in the trial court.” (Citations omitted.)).

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

AASIR AZZARMI VS DELTA AIR LINES, INC, ET AL.

., Debbie Bunch, Charlotte Ling, Richard Lorich, Jeanne Maumus, and Andrea Misserian (1) Motion for Reconsideration (filed on February 14, 2020) (2) Motion for Reconsideration (filed on February 18, 2020) The court considered the moving and opposition papers. RULING The motions are DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

FHDI, LLC VS. AMERICAN LIFE CAPITAL, LLC

App. 4th 1, 16–17 [“Wiz's motion for reconsideration was filed one day beyond the statutory 10-day limitation period for filing a motion for reconsideration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a).) This alone could support the trial court's denial of the motion.”] As such, this Motion is untimely and is DENIED. (See Advanced Building Maintenance v. State Comp. Ins.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

INTELLIGENT SCM LLC ET AL VS RUSSELL W ROTEN ET AL

Conclusion Based on the foregoing, ISCM’s motion for reconsideration is denied. Firm Defendants are ordered to give notice of this order. DATED: July 6, 2020 ________________________________ Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 152     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.