Preview
24
25
Prepared by the Court
kD
“- fut
Superior Court of Cali
fornia
ounty of San riancisco
JUN 2 4 2020
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Francisco
Department No. 302
INCOMM FINANCIAL SERVICES,
INC.,
Petitioner,
Vv.
STAN SCHULDINER,
Respondent.
STAN SCHULDINER,
Cross-complainant,
v.
INCOMM FINANCIAL SERVICES,
INC., et al,
Cross-defendants.
Page 1
No. CPF-15-514368
ORDER DENYING MR. SCHULDINER’S
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR ORDERS,
AND TO VACATE, OBTAIN RELIEF FROM
AND/OR AMEND JUDGMENT24
25
On June 18, 2020 and June 22, 2020 hearings were held on cross-complainant Stan
Schuldiner’s motion for new trial, for reconsideration of prior orders I made, and to vacate,
obtain relief from and/or amend judgment. Both hearings were held by CourtCall. At both
hearings Mr. Schuldiner represented himself and Matthew Wrenshall appeared for the cross-
defendants. At the conclusion of the June 22 hearing I took the motion under submission so that I
could more fully consider the issue whether my prior orders awarding costs to cross-defendants
were legally erroneous because they were made based on my post-judgment reconsideration of
an earlier post-judgment order that determined that cross-defendants were not entitled to any
costs.
Mr. Schuldiner correctly observes that Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp. (2005)
128 Cal. 4" 187, 192 states, without qualification, that “A trial court may not rule on a motion
for reconsideration after entry of. judgment.” Although that statement was not made in the
context of a collateral post-judgment order such as a costs motion, the later case of Rancho
Mirage Country Club Homeowners Assn. v. Hazelbaker (2016) 2 Cal. App. 5'* 252 applied the
statement in Sole to a motion to reconsider a pre-judgment motion for attorney’s fee where the
fees award was included in the initial judgment.
After a thorough review of the statutes, rules and case law regarding post-judgment costs
motions and in the absence of any direct on-point authority to the contrary, I hold, as a matter of
first impression, that a motion for reconsideration, either per CCP1008 or a court’s inherent
authority, is available to permit a court to change its earlier ruling on a post-judgment costs
motion. If it were not available, then when the time to file a new trial motion has elapsed, which
will likely occur as of the issuance of a post-judgment costs order in the great majority cases, the
parties would have no trial court remedy to seek correction, and the trial court would have no
Page 224
25
authority to correct, an erroneous post-judgment costs order. Instead the parties would have to
resort to an expensive and time-consuming appeal.
If there was a case, statute or rule so requiring this ineffective and inefficient process of
precluding a trial court from correcting what it believes to be an erroneous post-judgment costs,
order, I would be bound to follow that case, statute or rule. Since there isn’t such a case, statute
or rule, I hold, per the well-established principle that a case is not authority for a proposition not
considered therein, that what appears to be dispositive language in Sole and Rancho Mirage
favoring Mr. Schuldiner’s position is not applicable to a post-judgment costs motion.
For the reasons set forth above, Mr. Schuldiner’s motion for new trial, for reconsideration
of prior orders I made, and to vacate, obtain relief from and/or amend judgment is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 23, 2020
‘Harold Kahn
Superior Court Judge
Page 3CPF-15-514368 ITC FINANCIAL LICENSES, INC. VS. STAN SCHULDINER
I, the undersigned, certify that I am an employee of the Superior Court of California, County Of San Francisco and not
a party to the above-entitled cause and that on June 24, 2020 I served the foregoing on each counsel of record or party
appearing in propria persona by causing a copy thereof to be enclosed in a postage paid sealed envelope and deposited
in the United States Postal Service mail box located at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco CA 94102-4514 pursuant
to standard court practice.
Date: June 24, 2020 = SEAN KANE,
ABRAHAM J. COLMAN, ESQ.
MATHEW M. WRENSHALL, ESQ.
REED SMITH LLP
355 SOUTH GRAND AVE, SUITE 2900
LOS ANGELES, CA 90071-1514
STAN SCHULDINER
P.O. BOX 15203
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94115
SPENCER PERSSON, ESQ.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
555 SOUTH FLOWER STREET
41ST FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CA 90071
Certificate of Service — Form C00005010
Preview
24 25 Prepared by the Court kD “- fut Superior Court of Cali fornia ounty of San riancisco JUN 2 4 2020 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA County of San Francisco Department No. 302 INCOMM FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, Vv. STAN SCHULDINER, Respondent. STAN SCHULDINER, Cross-complainant, v. INCOMM FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., et al, Cross-defendants. Page 1 No. CPF-15-514368 ORDER DENYING MR. SCHULDINER’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, FOR RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR ORDERS, AND TO VACATE, OBTAIN RELIEF FROM AND/OR AMEND JUDGMENT24 25 On June 18, 2020 and June 22, 2020 hearings were held on cross-complainant Stan Schuldiner’s motion for new trial, for reconsideration of prior orders I made, and to vacate, obtain relief from and/or amend judgment. Both hearings were held by CourtCall. At both hearings Mr. Schuldiner represented himself and Matthew Wrenshall appeared for the cross- defendants. At the conclusion of the June 22 hearing I took the motion under submission so that I could more fully consider the issue whether my prior orders awarding costs to cross-defendants were legally erroneous because they were made based on my post-judgment reconsideration of an earlier post-judgment order that determined that cross-defendants were not entitled to any costs. Mr. Schuldiner correctly observes that Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp. (2005) 128 Cal. 4" 187, 192 states, without qualification, that “A trial court may not rule on a motion for reconsideration after entry of. judgment.” Although that statement was not made in the context of a collateral post-judgment order such as a costs motion, the later case of Rancho Mirage Country Club Homeowners Assn. v. Hazelbaker (2016) 2 Cal. App. 5'* 252 applied the statement in Sole to a motion to reconsider a pre-judgment motion for attorney’s fee where the fees award was included in the initial judgment. After a thorough review of the statutes, rules and case law regarding post-judgment costs motions and in the absence of any direct on-point authority to the contrary, I hold, as a matter of first impression, that a motion for reconsideration, either per CCP1008 or a court’s inherent authority, is available to permit a court to change its earlier ruling on a post-judgment costs motion. If it were not available, then when the time to file a new trial motion has elapsed, which will likely occur as of the issuance of a post-judgment costs order in the great majority cases, the parties would have no trial court remedy to seek correction, and the trial court would have no Page 224 25 authority to correct, an erroneous post-judgment costs order. Instead the parties would have to resort to an expensive and time-consuming appeal. If there was a case, statute or rule so requiring this ineffective and inefficient process of precluding a trial court from correcting what it believes to be an erroneous post-judgment costs, order, I would be bound to follow that case, statute or rule. Since there isn’t such a case, statute or rule, I hold, per the well-established principle that a case is not authority for a proposition not considered therein, that what appears to be dispositive language in Sole and Rancho Mirage favoring Mr. Schuldiner’s position is not applicable to a post-judgment costs motion. For the reasons set forth above, Mr. Schuldiner’s motion for new trial, for reconsideration of prior orders I made, and to vacate, obtain relief from and/or amend judgment is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 23, 2020 ‘Harold Kahn Superior Court Judge Page 3CPF-15-514368 ITC FINANCIAL LICENSES, INC. VS. STAN SCHULDINER I, the undersigned, certify that I am an employee of the Superior Court of California, County Of San Francisco and not a party to the above-entitled cause and that on June 24, 2020 I served the foregoing on each counsel of record or party appearing in propria persona by causing a copy thereof to be enclosed in a postage paid sealed envelope and deposited in the United States Postal Service mail box located at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco CA 94102-4514 pursuant to standard court practice. Date: June 24, 2020 = SEAN KANE, ABRAHAM J. COLMAN, ESQ. MATHEW M. WRENSHALL, ESQ. REED SMITH LLP 355 SOUTH GRAND AVE, SUITE 2900 LOS ANGELES, CA 90071-1514 STAN SCHULDINER P.O. BOX 15203 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94115 SPENCER PERSSON, ESQ. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 555 SOUTH FLOWER STREET 41ST FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90071 Certificate of Service — Form C00005010