The Petition for Reconsideration of Summary Judgment Based on the Merits of the Case brought by plaintiff Joseph Poirier (Plaintiff) is DENIED.
The motion is procedurally deficient, as it is not accompanied by a proper notice of hearing, which must be a separate paper. See Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial ¶¶ 9:28-9:29. The motion is also procedurally deficient because the requirements for a proper motion for reconsideration have not been met. See Code Civ. Proc. § 1008; see also Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (TRG 2020) ¶ 9:324 (a motion for reconsideration must be made within 10 days of service of the notice of entry of the order; be based on new or different facts, circumstances, or law; be supported by a declaration stating those new or different facts, circumstances, or law; and be "made and decided before entry of judgment") (emphasis added).
Furthermore, even if the motion was procedurally proper in that the notice deficiency was
Hearing Date
January 07, 2021
Category
Civil - Unlimited
Type
Breach of Contract/Warranty
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
The Petition for Reconsideration of Summary Judgment Based on the Merits of the Case brought by plaintiff Joseph Poirier (Plaintiff) is DENIED.
The motion is procedurally deficient, as it is not accompanied by a proper notice of hearing, which must be a separate paper. See Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial ¶¶ 9:28-9:29. The motion is also procedurally deficient because the requirements for a proper motion for reconsideration have not been met. See Code Civ. Proc. § 1008; see also Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (TRG 2020) ¶ 9:324 (a motion for reconsideration must be made within 10 days of service of the notice of entry of the order; be based on new or different facts, circumstances, or law; be supported by a declaration stating those new or different facts, circumstances, or law; and be "made and decided before entry of judgment") (emphasis added).
Furthermore, even if the motion was procedurally proper in that the notice deficiency was