Section 1008 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for reconsideration of court orders. A motion to reconsider is broad in scope and allows any party affected by the order to seek reconsideration and modification, amendment or vacation of prior orders. Morite of Calif. v. Super. Ct. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 485, 490.
The Court has inherent authority to reconsider any of its own rulings on its own motion provided that it gives the parties notice and a reasonable opportunity to litigate the issue. Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1096-1109.
“The legislative intent was to restrict motions for reconsideration to circumstances where a party offers the court some fact or circumstance not previously considered, and some valid reason for not offering it earlier.” Weil & Brown et al., CAL. PRAC. GUIDE: CIV. PRO. BEFORE TRIAL (The Rutter Group 2018) ¶9:328, p.9(I)-148 citing Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500 (Gilberd), et al.
“A party who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or part, or granted conditionally or on terms, may make a subsequent application for the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, in which case it shall be shown 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. For a failure to comply with this subdivision, any order made on a subsequent application may be revoked or set aside on ex parte motion.” Code of Civ. Proc., § 1008(b).
To be entitled to reconsideration, a party must show new or different facts and a satisfactory explanation for failing to produce such evidence earlier. Kalivas v. Barry Controls Corp., (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1160-61. The requirement of satisfactory explanation for failing to provide the evidence earlier can only be described as a strict requirement of diligence. 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 the trial. Case law after the 1992 amendments to section 1008 has relaxed the definition of ‘new or different facts,’ but it is still necessary that the party seeking that relief offer some fact or circumstance not previously considered by the court.” New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212-213.
A motion for reconsideration cannot be granted on the ground that the court misapplied the law in its initial ruling. Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.
“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.” Code of Civ. Proc., § 1008(a).
Motion for Reconsideration OFF CALENDAR MATTER IS IN ARBITRAION
Feb 01, 2021
Orange County, CA
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.
Jan 28, 2021
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
Los Angeles County, CA
.: BC709258 Hearing Date: January 28, 2021 Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
Jan 28, 2021
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
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
Jan 27, 2021
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jan 27, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Motion for Reconsideration Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 is the exclusive means for reconsideration of court orders, including motions for renewal.
Jan 27, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jan 27, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Jan 27, 2021
Marin County, CA
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.
Jan 27, 2021
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jan 26, 2021
Orange County, CA
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.
Jan 26, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Jan 26, 2021
Real Property
Foreclosure
Los Angeles County, CA
Conclusion: Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
Jan 25, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jan 22, 2021
Sacramento County, CA
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.
Jan 22, 2021
Sacramento County, CA
.: 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.
Jan 22, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
.: 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.
Jan 22, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Therefore, in addition to being untimely, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied on the merits.
Jan 21, 2021
Contra Costa County, CA
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied. Dated: January _____, 2021 Hon. Monica Bachner Judge of the Superior Court
Jan 21, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jan 20, 2021
Other
Enforcement
Ventura County, CA
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.
Jan 20, 2021
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
Jan 20, 2021
Real Property
other
Sacramento County, CA
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.
Jan 20, 2021
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jan 20, 2021
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jan 19, 2021
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.