2016-00202467-CU-FR

Kenneth B. Zamvil vs. Ca State Teachers’ Retirement System

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Reconsideration

Filed By: Zamvil, Kenneth B.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the ruling sustaining the demurrer of the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (“CalSTRS”) and Lynn Marshall to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is denied.

Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice is granted.

The Court sustained defendants’ demurrer and motion to strike, without leave to amend, on December 29, 2017. (See Carruth Decl, Ex. D)

In its Order on the Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), the Court ruled in favor of CalSTRS based on subject matter jurisdiction and res judicata points because plaintiff had not appealed the ruling of the administrative law judge who decided against him in the underlying administrative hearing. As to Lynn Marshall, the Court ruled in her favor on the statute of limitations argument. Plaintiff’s moving papers do not address either the subject matter jurisdiction issue or whether the doctrine of res judicata would preclude a second suit between the same parties on the same cause of action. Instead, Mr. Zamvil focuses on facts that have no bearing to the actual issues before this Court on a motion for reconsideration.

Plaintiff has failed to meet the requirements of a motion for reconsideration because he has not set forth any relevant facts, circumstances, or law that would merit a reconsideration of the Court’s order. A party moving for reconsideration of a ruling must not only show new or different facts or laws justifying reconsideration, he or she must also provide a satisfactory explanation for not presenting those new or different facts or laws at the time of the prior hearing. See Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1198-1200; Glade v. Glade (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1457. The public policy requiring such justification is based on ensuring that litigants bring claims carefully and that res judicata remains in effect. Baldwin, page 1198.

Plaintiff’s motion makes three arguments, that the statute of limitations should have been tolled until the Administrative Law Court came down with its final decision, that CalSTRS’ delay in setting the administrative hearing should invalidate it, and that CalSTRS violated the Education Code, misrepresented both facts and law to the Administrative Law Judge, and wrongfully placed a
hold on Mr. Zamvil’s retirement account. (Plaintiff’s Motion, 2:6-20.)

None of these arguments satisfies the requirements of a motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff has either already presented these same arguments to this Court or, in the case of the statute of limitations tolling argument, had the opportunity to present it at the time of the prior hearing but has not provided any reasonable explanation for his failure to do so.