Case Number: 19CHRO00123 Hearing Date: June 20, 2019 Dept: 311

TENTATIVE RULING

Yolanda Aldava vs. Cindy Escobar, and related actions

19 CHRO 00123

19 CHRO 00125

19 CHRO 00322

19 CHRO 00323

Four requests for civil harassment restraining orders were filed involving the same four parties, a mother and a daughter on one side and a mother and daughter on the other side. In two of them, Yolanda Aldava is the Petitioner and she sought restraining orders against Cindy Escobar and her mother Rebecca Vasquez. In the other two, Rebecca Vasquez is the Petitioner and she sought restraining orders against Yolanda Aldava and her daughter Ginger Aldava.

On April 4, 2019, the Court granted one of the four restraining orders, 19 CHRO 00125, Yolanda Aldava vs. Cindy Escobar. The Court denied Ms. Aldava’s request for a restraining order against Rebecca Vasquez, the mother of Cindy Escobar. The Court also denied both of Ms. Vasquez’ restraining order requests against Ms. Aldava and her daughter.

On April 16, 2019, counsel for Cindy Escobar and Rebecca Vasquez sought to file a motion for reconsideration under C.C.P. §1008. For administrative reasons, the motion was received and not filed and, as a result, no hearing date was ever set. Thereafter, when the matter was brought to the Court’s attention, the Court set the motion for hearing on June 20, 2019.

The Court now sets forth its tentative ruling on the motion, which is to deny the motion on the grounds and for the reasons set forth below.

Under C.C.P. §1008(a), a motion for reconsideration must be based on new or different facts, circumstances, or law. A party seeking reconsideration must “provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure to make the showing at or before the time the challenged order was issued.” N.Y. Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 208; Foothills Townhome Assn. v. Christiansen (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 688, 692.

Facts known and evidence available at the time of the original ruling by the party seeking reconsideration are not “new or different.” To satisfy C.C.P. §1008, the information must be such that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced it at the trial or hearing. New York Times Co., supra, at 212-213; Foothills Townhome Assn. , supra, at 692; see also, In re Marriage of Herr (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1468.

Here Cindy Escobar and her mother Rebecca Vasquez request reconsideration to allow them to call Cindy Escobar’s therapist as a witness to an incident in December 2018. However, the therapist’s presence at the incident in issue was known to the moving parties at and prior to the hearing. Indeed, the declarations of both of the moving parties, Cindy Escobar and Rebecca Vasquez, filed a month before the hearing, state that the therapist was present. Declaration of Cindy Escobar, filed March 11, 2019, in Case No. 19 CHRO 00125, ¶14 at page 3, lines 23-27; Declaration of Rebecca Vasquez, filed March 12, 2019, in Case No. 19 CHRO 00322, ¶3, lines 8-12; Declataion of Rebecca Vasquez, filed March 12, 2019, in Case No. 19 CHRO 00323, ¶10, p. 3, lines 10-14. No reason for not calling the therapist to testify at the hearing has been provided.

Under the circumstances, the standard required for reconsideration – a showing that the moving parties could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced the therapist as a witness at the hearing – has not been met.

The motion for reconsideration is denied.