DROTTS’ MOTION TO VACATE DECISION TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Joel Drotts’ Motion to Vacate Decision, filed 1-8-19, is DENIED. The moving papers violate the Calif. Rules of Court in several respects, including the page limitation, an issue regarding which the Court has repeatedly admonished Plaintiff in the past. See CRC 3.1113(d). The Court will not belabor these procedural defects, however, as there are more significant reasons the motion must be denied.

The request for relief under Code Civ. Proc. § 663 lacks merit. Plaintiff seeks relief from an Order sustaining a Demurrer. As noted in the Opposition and not addressed in any Reply, a motion to vacate judgment under § 663, subdivision (1) may only be brought when the trial judge draws an incorrect legal conclusion or renders an erroneous judgment upon the facts found by it to exist. Payne v. Rader (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1574-5, disapproved of on other grounds in Ryan v. Rosenfeld (2017) 3 Cal.5th 124, 135, fn. 3. “A section 663 motion simply does not lie to vacate a judgment following a demurrer sustained without leave to amend.” Id. See also Plaza Hollister Ltd. Partnership v. County of San Benito (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1, 14 (“A motion to vacate under section 663 is a remedy to be used when a trial court draws incorrect conclusions of law or renders an erroneous judgment on the basis of uncontroverted evidence.”). A Demurrer tests only the sufficiency of the pleadings. Code Civ. Proc. § 430.30. In the Demurrer context, “[t]here [are] no ‘conclusions of law’ to be corrected from ‘uncontroverted evidence.’” Payne v. Rader, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at 1574-5. Thus, § 663 relief is not available.
The request for relief under Code Civ. Proc. § 1008 also lacks merit for multiple reasons. Plaintiff has not filed the affidavit required by § 1008(a), nor attempted to identify any “new or different facts, circumstances or law” that would warrant relief. Both of these deficiencies are independent grounds to deny the motion.

Further, even if the Court could or were to reach the merits under either of the above statutes, the Court would reach the same conclusion, because Plaintiff has not demonstrated error in the underlying ruling. See Fourth-Amended Complaint, ¶¶47-52; 1-8-19 Order sustaining Defendants’ Demurrer (explaining why Plaintiff’s asserted claims are time-barred).