Case Number: KC062033    Hearing Date: August 05, 2014    Dept: O

Goodwin v. Pagano, et al. (KC062033)

Plaintiff Goodwin’s MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Respondent: Defendants Truong

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Goodwin’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

TIMELINESS:
A motion for reconsideration must be filed within 10 days after the service of notice of entry of the order. (CCP 1008(a).)

Judicial Notice is taken of the minute order dated 6/5/14, showing that Plaintiff personally appeared at the hearing. Therefore, Plaintiff was on notice of the court’s ruling as of 6/5/14. Further, the Order granting summary judgment was served on Plaintiff on 6/10/14. (Wong Decl., Par. 2.) Under both dates, the motion, filed 7/11/12, is untimely.

MERITS:

A motion for reconsideration must be based on NEW OR DIFFERENT FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES OR LAW. (CCP 1008.) The legislative intent was to restrict these motions to circumstances where a party offers the court some fact or circumstance not previously considered, AND SOME VALID REASON FOR NOT OFFERING IT EARLY. (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.) The burden is comparable to that of a party seeking a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, i.e. THE INFORMATION MUST BE SUCH THAT THE MOVING PARTY COULD NOT WITH REASONABLE DILIGENCE HAVE DISCOVERED OR PRODUCED IT AT TRIAL. (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (Wall Street Network, Ltd.) (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212-213.)

Plaintiff failed to raise new or different facts which could not have been offered at the hearing. Further, even if Woolf’s supplemental declaration was considered, Woolf failed to opine “to a reasonable degree of medical probability” that Defendant caused Plaintiff’s injury. (See Bromme v. Pavitt (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1498; Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 396, 402 403.) Woolf’s declaration is substantively deficient. Motion is DENIED.