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“A party who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or part, or granted conditionally or on terms, may make a subsequent application for the same order upon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).