MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF STATEMENT OF DECISION
TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
Notwithstanding the procedural propriety of the motion, the court has considered the merits of the motion because: (1) plaintiff has not had a previous opportunity to respond to defendant’s argument against foreseeability of the wine storage damages; and (2) the court could certainly reconsider the issue on its own motion. Having given the matter reconsideration, however, the court finds the wine storage costs would constitute special damages that were not foreseen or adequately foreseeable as part of the parties’ agreement in this case. This case is distinguishable from those cited in plaintiff’s motion because, unlike premises that can always be expected to be utilized upon availability by the parties themselves or rented for use by others, the same is not true for wine tanks. As indicated in the court’s decision in the matter, it is just as reasonable that plaintif
Hearing Date
December 05, 2019
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF STATEMENT OF DECISION
TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
Notwithstanding the procedural propriety of the motion, the court has considered the merits of the motion because: (1) plaintiff has not had a previous opportunity to respond to defendant’s argument against foreseeability of the wine storage damages; and (2) the court could certainly reconsider the issue on its own motion. Having given the matter reconsideration, however, the court finds the wine storage costs would constitute special damages that were not foreseen or adequately foreseeable as part of the parties’ agreement in this case. This case is distinguishable from those cited in plaintiff’s motion because, unlike premises that can always be expected to be utilized upon availability by the parties themselves or rented for use by others, the same is not true for wine tanks. As indicated in the court’s decision in the matter, it is just as reasonable that plaintif