Search anything: case name, case number, motion type, judge, or party
(Subscribe to View)
Track Rulings In Case
March 3, 2020
San Joaquin County, CA
Sandra Martin - Petitioner
Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board - Respondent
Darrell W Spence - Respondent's Attorney
Jan 08, 2020
Jenny Ji Vs Mitchell Blum
Linda Freeman Vs City Of Stockton
Jose Estrada Vs Avitus, Inc
Garry D Bradberry Vs Fca Us Llc,
Petition Of J.G. Wentworth Originations, Llc Et Al.
Jonathan Dave Bruce Vs Encore Fgbf, Llc Et Al.
Roger Delgado Et Al. Vs Bank Of New York Mellon, A New York Corporation Et Al.
Robert James Romero Vs City Of Manteca, A Public Entity Et Al.
Keenan Wilkins Vs County Of San Joaquin Et Al.
Frank Alvarez Vs Home Depot U.S.A, Inc. Et Al.
Tentative Ruling Petition Sandra Martin's motion for reconsideration is Denied. CCP section 1008. A motion for reconsideration under CCP section 1008 must be based on new or different facts, circumstances or law, other than those presented before the court at the time of the original ruling. But that's not all. The burden under CCP section 1008 is on the party bringing the motion, to establish that they could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced it at the earlier time. New York Times Co. v. Sup. Ct. (2005) 135 CA4th 206, 212-213. Petitioner falls woefully short of her burden. Petitioner has presented no new facts for the Court to consider. She states she'll present new facts at the hearing, but this is not a proper offer of proof. If indeed there were new facts which Petitioner could not have presented earlier in support of her writ of mandate, then she needed to present them in her motion, but she failed to do so. ........
You can see and manage all of your alerts under Settings -> Alerts
Add to your subscription and access more dockets and more documents!
Your subscription was successfully upgraded
Please wait a moment while we load this page.