Case Number: BC494244    Hearing Date: July 15, 2014    Dept: 92

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

HYEJIN JEONG,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.

BEFORE & AFTER MEDICAL GROUP, et al.
Defendant(s).

Case No.: BC494244

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Dept. 92
1:30 p.m. — #12
July 16, 2014

Defendant, Sunmee Chung, M.D.’s Motion for Reconsideration is Denied.

1. Background Facts
Plaintiff, Hyejin Jeong filed this action against Defendants, Before & After Medical Group, Sunmee Chung, and Soon B. Kim on 10/19/12. The complaint is for medical malpractice. On 6/06/13, Plaintiff filed proof of service of the summons, complaint, statement of damages, and related papers on Defendants, showing service by substituted service on 1/07/13 with papers mailed on 1/08/13. The proof of service is signed by a registered process server. Also on 6/06/13, the Clerk entered default against all defendants in this action.

2. Motion for Relief from Default
On 3/21/14, the Court heard and ultimately denied Defendant, Chung’s motion for relief from the default. Defendant, Chung moved for relief from default on two grounds: (a) she was not served with the summons and complaint, and (b) she erroneously believed the case could be handled in a bankruptcy action she intends to file. The Court found insufficient evidence to support her first argument, and found her second argument was not supported by authority. The Court also found the motion was not diligently pursued.

a. Reply
Plaintiff timely filed and served opposition to the motion on 7/01/14. Any reply to the opposition was due on or before 7/09/14. As of 7.14/14, the Court has not received any reply documents. The Court will not consider any late-filed reply documents.

b. Law Regarding Motions for Reconsideration
CCP §1008 permits the court to reconsider a prior ruling based on new facts, circumstances, or law. 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. Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 CA4th 1494, 1500. The burden under § 1008 “is comparable to that of a party seeking a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence: the information must be such that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced it at the trial.” New York Times Co. v. Sup.Ct. (2005) 135 CA4th 206, 212–213.

A party seeking reconsideration of a prior order based on “new or different facts, circumstances or law” must provide a satisfactory explanation for failing to present the information at the first hearing; i.e., a showing of reasonable diligence. Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 CA4th 674, 690.

c. Analysis
Defendant moves for reconsideration on two grounds. First, she contends she was seriously ill, feeble, or unable to understand the papers served on her. Second, she contends she lacked real notice of the default until she received the default prove-up package in the mail.

As Plaintiff correctly notes in opposition, neither of these arguments constitutes a “new or different fact, circumstance, or law” as defined above. Defendant had all facts available to her at the time she made her original motion, and a failure to include all arguments in the original motion is not a ground for reconsideration. The motion is therefore denied.

Dated this 16th day of July, 2014

Hon. Elia Weinbach
Judge of the Superior Court