The Motion (ROA # 120) of Plaintiffs LEO PERRY, MARGARET PARKS, BRUCE WATERMAN, SAPNA IYER, CASEY CULBERTSON, PETER CHIRASEVEENUPRAPUND, JO ANN YANG, THEODOROS PIKNIS, ROBERT STEPHENS, KIMBERLEY DEEDE, JUSTIN McBRIDE, TRACT SNOW, KEVIN BOWENS, JOHN MANNION, BRIAN ARMSTON and EDWARD CRAMP ("Plaintiffs") for reconsideration, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 1008, of the previous ruling granting the City's Motion for summary judgment (ROA #s 94 and 111), is DENIED.
This Motion must be "based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law." Code Civ. Proc. 1008. The legislative intent was to restrict motions for reconsideration to circumstances where a party offers the Court some fact or circumstance not previously considered, and some valid reason for not offering it earlier. Edmon & Karnow, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2019) at ¶ 9:328. The information must be such that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered
Hearing Date
November 05, 2019
Category
Civil - Unlimited
Type
Misc Complaints - Other
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
The Motion (ROA # 120) of Plaintiffs LEO PERRY, MARGARET PARKS, BRUCE WATERMAN, SAPNA IYER, CASEY CULBERTSON, PETER CHIRASEVEENUPRAPUND, JO ANN YANG, THEODOROS PIKNIS, ROBERT STEPHENS, KIMBERLEY DEEDE, JUSTIN McBRIDE, TRACT SNOW, KEVIN BOWENS, JOHN MANNION, BRIAN ARMSTON and EDWARD CRAMP ("Plaintiffs") for reconsideration, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 1008, of the previous ruling granting the City's Motion for summary judgment (ROA #s 94 and 111), is DENIED.
This Motion must be "based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law." Code Civ. Proc. 1008. The legislative intent was to restrict motions for reconsideration to circumstances where a party offers the Court some fact or circumstance not previously considered, and some valid reason for not offering it earlier. Edmon & Karnow, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2019) at ¶ 9:328. The information must be such that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered