On April 29, 2022 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Gray, April M,
Muscatelli, Debra,
and
Does 1 Through 20,
Does 1 Through 25,
Hilgenberg, Heath Michael,
Hilgenberg, Michael Charles,
Hmh Redlands Inc,
Parkinson, Debra,
for Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
EMILE M. MULLICK, ESQ.
State Bar No. 146706
255 North "D" Street, Suite 301
F l
%
D
San Bemardino, California 92401
Telephone: (909) 384-1975
email: emullick@mullick-law.com
MAY 2 3 2024
OOOOVQKII$WN~
Attorney for Plaintiffs;
Debra Muscatelli and April Gray
m_w— 03M
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEBRA MUSCATELLI, an individual; and ' CASE NUMBER CIVSB 2208814
APRIL GRAY, an individual, "
"
Plaintiffs OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S
RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;
DECLARATION OF ATTORNEY.
DEBRA PARKINSON, an individual; HMH Hearing Date:
REDLANDS INC, a California Corporation. Date: June l7, 2024
dba KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY; Time: 8:30 a.m.
HEATH MICHAEL HILGENBERG, an VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV'
Dept: S 23
individual; MICHAEL CHARLES
HILGENBERG an individual; and DOES l Trial Date: October 2 l 2024
,
to 20 inclusive
Defendants
Plaintiffs DEBRA MUSCATELLI and APRIL GRAY oppose Defendants’ Motion For
Reconsideration of the Court’s Ruling on Defendants‘ Motion For Summary Judgment or
Adjudication. The Parties appeared by counsel at the hearing on Defendants” Motion For
Summary Judgment January l8, 2024. This opposition is grounded on procedural defects and on
the merits of argument.
/ / /
/ / /
OPPOSITION TO DEF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MSJ RULING l
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
PROCEDURAL DEFECTS
l. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS TIME BARRED.
California Rules of Civil Procedure section 1008 states in relevant part:
(a) When an application for an order has been made to ajudge. or to a court, and
OOOONQUIAWN—
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 ofthe order
The Court ruled on Defendants‘ Motion For Summary Judgment or Adjudication on
March 1, 2024. Notice of the ruling was served on March l3, 2024. Defendants acknowledge
the date of service by the Court at the declaration of attorney paragraph 8, but assert that the
notice was not received. Defendants' Motion For Reconsideration was filed 0n March 28, 2024.
The number of court days from Notice of Ruling to filing 0f Defendants' motion is eleven days,
the ten day time period expired at close of business on March 27, 2024. The number of calendar
days from Notice of Ruling t0 filing of Defendants‘ motion is fourteen days, two weeks. A
Party's motion asking the court to reconsider on its motion after the IO day period is ineffective,
Le Francois v Goel (2005) 35 cal.4th 1094. l 108.
ARGUMENT 0N THE MERITS
NOT BASED 0N NEW
NNNNNNNNN~.—_.—___.___
muamth—oomuamhwtvw 2. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS
FACTS OR LAW.
California Rules of Civil Procedure section 1008 state in relevant part:
“ make
based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law. 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."
OPPOSITION TO DEF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MSJ RULING 2
Document Filed Date
May 23, 2024
Case Filing Date
April 29, 2022
Category
Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
EMILE M. MULLICK, ESQ. State Bar No. 146706 255 North "D" Street, Suite 301 F l % D San Bemardino, California 92401 Telephone: (909) 384-1975 email: emullick@mullick-law.com MAY 2 3 2024 OOOOVQKII$WN~ Attorney for Plaintiffs; Debra Muscatelli and April Gray m_w— 03M SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEBRA MUSCATELLI, an individual; and ' CASE NUMBER CIVSB 2208814 APRIL GRAY, an individual, " " Plaintiffs OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DECLARATION OF ATTORNEY. DEBRA PARKINSON, an individual; HMH Hearing Date: REDLANDS INC, a California Corporation. Date: June l7, 2024 dba KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY; Time: 8:30 a.m. HEATH MICHAEL HILGENBERG, an VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV' Dept: S 23 individual; MICHAEL CHARLES HILGENBERG an individual; and DOES l Trial Date: October 2 l 2024 , to 20 inclusive Defendants Plaintiffs DEBRA MUSCATELLI and APRIL GRAY oppose Defendants’ Motion For Reconsideration of the Court’s Ruling on Defendants‘ Motion For Summary Judgment or Adjudication. The Parties appeared by counsel at the hearing on Defendants” Motion For Summary Judgment January l8, 2024. This opposition is grounded on procedural defects and on the merits of argument. / / / / / / OPPOSITION TO DEF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MSJ RULING l POINTS AND AUTHORITIES PROCEDURAL DEFECTS l. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS TIME BARRED. California Rules of Civil Procedure section 1008 states in relevant part: (a) When an application for an order has been made to ajudge. or to a court, and OOOONQUIAWN— 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 ofthe order The Court ruled on Defendants‘ Motion For Summary Judgment or Adjudication on March 1, 2024. Notice of the ruling was served on March l3, 2024. Defendants acknowledge the date of service by the Court at the declaration of attorney paragraph 8, but assert that the notice was not received. Defendants' Motion For Reconsideration was filed 0n March 28, 2024. The number of court days from Notice of Ruling to filing 0f Defendants' motion is eleven days, the ten day time period expired at close of business on March 27, 2024. The number of calendar days from Notice of Ruling t0 filing of Defendants‘ motion is fourteen days, two weeks. A Party's motion asking the court to reconsider on its motion after the IO day period is ineffective, Le Francois v Goel (2005) 35 cal.4th 1094. l 108. ARGUMENT 0N THE MERITS NOT BASED 0N NEW NNNNNNNNN~.—_.—___.___ muamth—oomuamhwtvw 2. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS FACTS OR LAW. California Rules of Civil Procedure section 1008 state in relevant part: “ make based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law. 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." OPPOSITION TO DEF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MSJ RULING 2