Case Number: BC638472 Hearing Date: April 03, 2018 Dept: 46

Case Number: BC638472
ERIKA MILLER ET AL VS JP MORGAN CHASE BANK ET AL

Filing Date: 10/31/2016
Case Type: Infliction of Emotional Distress

4/03/2018
Motion for Reconsideration
OSC Re: Default of California Reconveyence Company

TENTATIVE RULING

Erika Miller individually and as Trustee of the Harry and Shirley Miller Revocable Living Trust dated December 6, 2007, and Tamara Rucker’s Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to CCP §1008, or construed as a motion for CCP §473(b) is DENIED. See discussion.

OSC regarding entry of default is discharged as default was entered on 3/6/2018. Plaintiff is ordered to submit a default package to Room 118 on or before 4/24/2018. OSC re submission of default package that complies with CRC 3.1800 is set for hearing on 5/17/2018 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 46.

DISCUSSION

CCP §1008(a) permits a motion for reconsideration, but requires that the moving party “shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” “The party seeking reconsideration must provide not just new evidence or different facts, but a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce it at an earlier time.” Glade v. Glade (1995) 38 C.A.4th 1441, 1457. This requirement also applies to new or different law. Baldwin v. Home Sav. Of America (1997) 59 C.A.4th 1192, 1200. New law is authority arising after the court’s decision, and different law is a principle different than that originally produced. Id. at 1196-97.

“[A] trial court is without jurisdiction to grant reconsideration after judgment is entered…The issue is jurisdictional. Once the trial court has entered judgment, it is without power to grant reconsideration. The fact that a motion for reconsideration may have been pending when judgment was entered does not restore this power to the trial court.” APRI Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 C.A.4th 176, 182. Judgment was entered as to these parties on 11/21/17. This court is no longer empowered to hear a motion to reconsider. And in any event, the Court of Appeal has held that the occurrence of oral argument is a circumstance wholly collateral to the merits of the motion, and thus not proper grounds for reconsideration. Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 C.A.4th 1494, 1500.

The court exercises its discretion to construe this motion as a motion for relief under CCP §473(b). Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp. (2005) 128 C.A.4th 187, 193 (“a trial court is free to consider the motion regardless of its label… The proposition that a trial court may construe a motion bearing one label as a different type of motion is one that has existed for many decades”) (internal quotation omitted).

However, even construing the motion as one pursuant to CCP §473(b) does not help. Plaintiffs cannot show that their appearance at oral argument would have brought about a different result. It would be different had the court dismissed the case because of Plaintiffs’ non-appearance rather than ruling on the merits, but that is simply not what happened.

Plaintiffs’ motion is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

___________________________
Frederick C. Shaller, Judge