What is a Motion to Reconsider?

Useful Resources for Motion to Reconsider

Recent Rulings on Motion to Reconsider

OLIVER-HORIST VS. WESCOM CENTRAL CREDIT UNION

Motion for Reconsideration OFF CALENDAR MATTER IS IN ARBITRAION

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2021

FROM THE EARTH, LLC VS CITY OF COMMERCE, ET AL.

SUBJECT: Motion for Reconsideration Moving Party: Defendant City of Commerce Resp. Party: Plaintiff From the Earth, LLC Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

BIANCA ENRIQUEZ VS PROVIDENCE HOLY CROSS MEDICAL CENTER ET A

.: BC709258 Hearing Date: January 28, 2021 Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

EARL NORBERT GARRETT, IV VS THE ENTHUSIAST NETWORK, INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Conclusion Based on the foregoing, Garrett’s motion for reconsideration is denied. GoldenTree is ordered to give notice of this Order. DATED: January 27, 2021 ________________________________ Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

KOREAN AMERICAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE USA VS DAVID KANG, ET AL.

On January 8, 2020, Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the order granting preliminary injunction in favor of Plaintiff, which the court ultimately denied on October 2, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CESARE VIETINA VS SECURITY PACIFIC ASSOCIATES INC ET AL

Motion for Reconsideration Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 is the exclusive means for reconsideration of court orders, including motions for renewal.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

ANTHONY WRIGHT VS CASA DE LAS INVESTMENTS LLC, ET AL.

Morgan, et al. case number 19STCV34171 (“Action 2”), (4) Anthony Wright's Motion for Reconsideration re: Dismissal in appellate case number B306697 re: Action 2., (5) the complaint in case number 19STCV34270 (“Action 3”), and (6) the complaint in case number 20STCV26931 (“Action 4”). Evid. Code §452.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BAD INVESTMENTS LLC AND NAKIA BIBBS

Legal Standard: Motion for Reconsideration [Code of Civil Procedure, section 1008! A party is prohibited from making, and the trial court from granting, a motion for reconsideration unless the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure, section 1008 (section 1008) are satisfied. (New York T imes Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

MICHAEL FLINT VS KONRAD TROPE, ET AL.

On December 10, 2020, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied on the ground that it failed to present any new facts or law. On December 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed this opposed motion to set aside/vacate.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

FORTIS CAPITAL LENDING, INC. V. TITAN MUTUAL LENDING, INC.

A motion for reconsideration must be based on new or different facts, circumstances or law [citation], and facts of which the party seeking reconsideration was aware at the time of the original ruling are not ‘new or different.’ [Citation.] In addition, a party must provide a satisfactory explanation for failing to offer the evidence in the first instance. [Citation.]” Pinela v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2021

FIRE PROTECTION GROUP INC VS ETCO HOMES INC

Plaintiff's argument that this demurrer should be a motion for reconsideration made pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 1008 is rejected. Defendant properly argues that Plaintiff’s position ignores the fact that the parties stipulated to discontinue the arbitration and proceed in state court before the “amended Statement of Claims” was litigated on Defendant’s challenge.

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2021

MYLENE FAROOQ VS. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., ET AL.

Disagreement with a ruling is not a new fact that will support the granting of a motion for reconsideration. (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.) 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.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

JEROME BEHAR, AS TRUSTEE ON BEHALF OF THE BEHAR LIVING TRUST VS RONALD STAUBER, AS TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF AMY SARET TRUST, ET AL.

Conclusion: Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

RAJI RAB VS. ALEX PADILLA SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Instead, on June 18, he filed a lengthy motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying his application for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause. On June 23, the Court denied the motion for reconsideration because it was not based on new facts, circumstances, or law, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. Instead, it simply repeated arguments that were raised in the initial application and summarized the evidence proffered in support thereof.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

RAJI RAB VS. ALEX PADILLA SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Instead, on June 18, he filed a lengthy motion for reconsideration of the Court's order denying his application for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause. On June 23, the Court denied the motion for reconsideration because it was not based on new facts, circumstances, or law, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. Instead, it simply repeated arguments that were raised in the initial application and summarized the evidence proffered in support thereof.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

.: BC659102 Hearing Date: January 22, 2021 [TENTATIVE] RULING RE: dEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR rECONSIDERATION OF RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES dEFENDANT jOHN bACHSIAN’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS Plaintiff Nigel Hudson’s MOTION TO TAX COSTS Moving Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. Defendant John Bachsian’s Motion to Tax Costs is DENIED. Moving Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is CONTINUED until March3,2021.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

NIGEL HUDSON VS JOHN ELY BACHSIAN ET AL

.: BC659102 Hearing Date: January 22, 2021 [TENTATIVE] RULING RE: dEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR rECONSIDERATION OF RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES dEFENDANT jOHN bACHSIAN’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS Plaintiff Nigel Hudson’s MOTION TO TAX COSTS Moving Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. Defendant John Bachsian’s Motion to Tax Costs is DENIED. Moving Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is CONTINUED until March3,2021.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

LOGAN VS STEADFAST HILLTOP

Therefore, in addition to being untimely, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied on the merits.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

JULIE VIGEANT VS HOLLYWOOD FORMOSA, LLC

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied. Dated: January _____, 2021 Hon. Monica Bachner Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS CONTINENTAL HERITAGE INS.

The Court properly and timely entered summary judgment after denying both of Petitioner's motion to extend the appearance period and motion for reconsideration. (Penal Code, §§ 1305 and 1306 and People v. Granite State Insurance Co. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 758, 766.) Moreover, the moving party has not shown that exoneration of bond and/or the release from its obligations are proper. Accordingly, the motion is denied. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Enforcement

DEAN HABEGGER VS DR. HENRY KUN

Defendants argue that plaintiff’s current motion is a disguised motion for reconsideration, brought without new facts or law. The parties do not appear to agree what prior order is being reconsidered. Assuming it is the court’s order sustaining the demurrer and denying leave to amend except pursuant to CCP § 473 (a)(1), the current motion might have been an invalid motion for reconsideration under different circumstances. Obviously, Streicher was not just recently decided.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

RITA A SCHROEDER VS. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES LLC

Schroeder's ("Plaintiff") motion for reconsideration of the Court's October 30, 2019 order denying the motion to consolidate this matter with the pending unlawful detainer case identified as 19UD5113. However, the Court's records indicate Plaintiff failed to properly file said motion. (See ROA 94.) Thus, the motion is not properly before the Court at this time. Moreover, the Court notes that Case No. 19UD5113 was dismissed prior to this hearing.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ADRIAN MADDEN VS GURUCUL SOLUTIONS, LLC

Because the Court decided to rehear the motion to compel, the Court stated that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is Moot, and taken off-calendar. On January 12, 2021, Defendant filed an application to file records relating to the reply for the motion for an order to post a bond under seal. On January 14, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one, numbers 17-26, and set two, number 25.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ADRIAN MADDEN VS GURUCUL SOLUTIONS, LLC

Because the Court decided to rehear the motion to compel, the Court stated that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is Moot, and taken off-calendar. On January 12, 2021, Defendant filed an application to file records relating to the reply for the motion for an order to post a bond under seal. On January 14, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one, numbers 17-26, and set two, number 25.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ADRIAN MADDEN VS GURUCUL SOLUTIONS, LLC

Because the Court decided to rehear the motion to compel, the Court stated that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is Moot, and taken off-calendar. On December 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed a first amended separate statement in support of motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Number 5.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 174     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.