On February 05, 2013 a
Hearing
was filed
involving a dispute between
Laird Johnson,
and
Debra A Johnson,
for 3.740 Collections: Unlimited
in the District Court of Stanislaus County.
Preview
3.?
r \
.
SUPERIOR COURT, QIATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY b; STANISLAUS
LAIRD JOHNSON. VS. DEBRA JOHNSON F
PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT ~
.JUDGE: STACY P. SPEILLER Case 2003744
Clerk: Kathy Gabrielson Date 09/04/19
RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This matter came‘on calendar on August 13,‘20l9 for Defendant’s
Motion for Reconsideration of Portions of the Court's May 23, 2019 Order.
Appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff was Janlynh R. Fleener, Esq, and
appearing on behalf of the Defendant was Michael R. Dennis, Esq.-
After the posting‘of the Court’s tentative ruling, Defense Counsel
requested a hearing. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the Court took the
'motion under submission- After further consideration, the‘Court renders
its‘ruling as follows:
The‘June 10, 2019 motionrfor reconsideratidn of the‘order that was
mailed to the parties on May 23, 2019 is untimely- Code of Civil Procedure
section 1008, subdivision (a), states that the deadline for filing a
motiOn for reconsideration begins‘when the order is “serv[ed],” not when
the order is received, as Defendant implies. Also, Defendant's suggestion
that the proof of service attached to the May 23, 2019‘order is incorrect
fails to‘rebut the presumption of regularity that attaches to a‘document
executed by a court clerk. (Evidence Code, §664.) The proof of service
clearly indicates that the clerk addressed the envelope, and said envelope
Was sealed and poStage thereon fully prepaid, and deposited into the
United States mail. Counsel for Plaintiff also confirmed receipt of said
order by mail.
The matter is jarisdictional. Because the motion is untimely, the
Court may not and therefore does not consider its merits. (Code of Civil
Procedure, §1008, Subdivision (e).)
The Court declines to exercise discretion to sua sponte reconsider
thé issues raised in the untimely motion. (Le Francois v. Goel(2005)35
Cal.4”11094, 1108.) -
cc: Janlynn R. Fleener, Esq“
Michael R. Dennis, Esq.
|Minute Order
fo-n‘
I¥w
{ N
PROOF OF.SERVICE BY MAIL [1013a(3) C.C.P.]
STATE'OF CALIFORNIA )
)
ss
COUNTY 0F STANISLAUSJ
I am over the age of 18 years and employed by the Superior Court of the
State of California,.County bf Stanislaus, and not a party to the within
action. I certify that I served-a copy of the attached MINUTE ORDER by
placing said copy in an envelop? addressed to the following:
Janlynn Ru Fleener, Esq.
Downey Brand, LLP. ,
621 Capitol Mall, 18t§ Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814—4731
Michael R. Dennis, Esq:
Crabtree Schmidt
1501 F Street
Modesto, CA 95354
Said envelope was then‘sealed and postage thereon fully prepaid, and.
thereafter was on ‘09/04/19 _
deposited in the United States mail
at'Modesto, California, That there'iS'delivery service by United States
«mail at the place.so addressed, or regular communication by Unitéd States~
mail between the‘place ofVmailing and thevplacé so addressed.
I declare under penalty of,perjury that the fonegoing is true and correct.
Executed on 09/04/19 at Modestot California
l
:By
'
#fihl
Kéfihy
anrmx fljfimfl
Deputy Clerk
~
GdB¥Eelson,
Document Filed Date
August 13, 2019
Case Filing Date
February 05, 2013
Category
3.740 Collections: Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
3.? r \ . SUPERIOR COURT, QIATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY b; STANISLAUS LAIRD JOHNSON. VS. DEBRA JOHNSON F PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT ~ .JUDGE: STACY P. SPEILLER Case 2003744 Clerk: Kathy Gabrielson Date 09/04/19 RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION This matter came‘on calendar on August 13,‘20l9 for Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of Portions of the Court's May 23, 2019 Order. Appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff was Janlynh R. Fleener, Esq, and appearing on behalf of the Defendant was Michael R. Dennis, Esq.- After the posting‘of the Court’s tentative ruling, Defense Counsel requested a hearing. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the Court took the 'motion under submission- After further consideration, the‘Court renders its‘ruling as follows: The‘June 10, 2019 motionrfor reconsideratidn of the‘order that was mailed to the parties on May 23, 2019 is untimely- Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (a), states that the deadline for filing a motiOn for reconsideration begins‘when the order is “serv[ed],” not when the order is received, as Defendant implies. Also, Defendant's suggestion that the proof of service attached to the May 23, 2019‘order is incorrect fails to‘rebut the presumption of regularity that attaches to a‘document executed by a court clerk. (Evidence Code, §664.) The proof of service clearly indicates that the clerk addressed the envelope, and said envelope Was sealed and poStage thereon fully prepaid, and deposited into the United States mail. Counsel for Plaintiff also confirmed receipt of said order by mail. The matter is jarisdictional. Because the motion is untimely, the Court may not and therefore does not consider its merits. (Code of Civil Procedure, §1008, Subdivision (e).) The Court declines to exercise discretion to sua sponte reconsider thé issues raised in the untimely motion. (Le Francois v. Goel(2005)35 Cal.4”11094, 1108.) - cc: Janlynn R. Fleener, Esq“ Michael R. Dennis, Esq. |Minute Order fo-n‘ I¥w { N PROOF OF.SERVICE BY MAIL [1013a(3) C.C.P.] STATE'OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY 0F STANISLAUSJ I am over the age of 18 years and employed by the Superior Court of the State of California,.County bf Stanislaus, and not a party to the within action. I certify that I served-a copy of the attached MINUTE ORDER by placing said copy in an envelop? addressed to the following: Janlynn Ru Fleener, Esq. Downey Brand, LLP. , 621 Capitol Mall, 18t§ Floor Sacramento, CA 95814—4731 Michael R. Dennis, Esq: Crabtree Schmidt 1501 F Street Modesto, CA 95354 Said envelope was then‘sealed and postage thereon fully prepaid, and. thereafter was on ‘09/04/19 _ deposited in the United States mail at'Modesto, California, That there'iS'delivery service by United States «mail at the place.so addressed, or regular communication by Unitéd States~ mail between the‘place ofVmailing and thevplacé so addressed. I declare under penalty of,perjury that the fonegoing is true and correct. Executed on 09/04/19 at Modestot California l :By ' #fihl Kéfihy anrmx fljfimfl Deputy Clerk ~ GdB¥Eelson,