Case Name: Wong et al. v. Lin et al.

Case No.: 111CV204122

Plaintiff Ha Huynh moves for reconsideration of this Court’s Order dated March 24, 2014 following Plaintiff Naomi Wong’s Motion to Enforce Settlement heard on March 14, 2014.  Plaintiff Huynh moves on the grounds that pursuant to CCP 1008(a), “new or different” circumstances exist as the Court’s reasoning in its March 24, 2014 Order is different than its reasoning when hearing a previous Motion to Enforce Settlement brought by Defendant Ching Lin on April 2, 2013.

“When an application for an order has been made to a judge […] and refused in whole or in part […] any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge […] to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 1008(a).)   In the immediate case, the Court issued its Order on March 24, 2014 and a Proof of Service of the Court’s Order bears the same date and was sent to Plaintiff Huynh as well as the remaining parties.  The instant Motion was not filed until July 9, 2014…..well beyond the requisite 10 day timeframe referenced above.  The moving party argues that since the Court’s Order is not formally entitled “Notice of Entry of Order,” the ten day time limit was not triggered and the moving papers were, therefore,  not untimely.  This Court disagrees.  The Order sent to Plaintiff Huynh was a filed-endorsed copy, signed by the Court, with a valid Proof of Service.  In other words, Plaintiff Huynh was served with written notice that the Court had entered the Order on March 24, 2014 and simply failed to act timely in moving for reconsideration.

Notwithstanding the procedural deficiency noted above, the Court further finds that the moving party has not met its burden in showing that there were “new or different facts, circumstances or law” as required by CCP 1008(a).  Plaintiff Huynh argues that “new or different circumstances” existed because of the difference in the Court’s “reasoning” following separate motions to enforce brought initially by Defendant Lin (April 2013) and then by Plaintiff Wong (March 2014).  The fact that the Court handled these separate motions brought by different parties at different times with separate reasoning does not equate to “new or different circumstances” as argued in the moving papers.  Moreover, the record before the Court indicates that Plaintiff Huynh was present and participated (by filing a Declaration in Opposition) to the Motion to Enforce Settlement by Plaintiff Wong.  Accordingly, the Court finds that the moving party has not met the requirements of CCP 1008(a) and the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.