2017-00223747-CU-PT

Marcie M. Pompei vs. Board of Supervisors Co of Sacramento

Nature of Proceeding: Petition for Order Relieving Petitioner from Provisions of Government

Filed By: Ponpei, Marcie M.

Self-represented Petitioner Marcie M Pompei’s “2nd Petition for Order Relieving Petitioner Marcie M Pompei from the Provisions of Government Code Section § 945.4″, construed by the Court as a Motion for Reconsideration of its Order Entered Jan. 8, 2018 is DENIED. C.C.P., sec. 1008.

The order for which plaintiff’s pending motion seeks reconsideration was entered Jan. 8, 2018. Plaintiff had only 10 days following the court’s order granting the motion for award of attorney’s fees to file a motion to reconsider.

Code of Civil Procedure § 1008 states in relevant part:

“When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days…make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application 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. (Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 1008 (a).)

“This section specifies the court’s jurisdiction with regard to applications for reconsideration of its orders and renewals of previous motions, and applies to all applications to reconsider any order of a judge or court, or for the renewal of a previous motion, whether the order deciding the previous matter or motion is interim or final. No application to reconsider any order or for the renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to this section.” (Cod e Civ. Proc., § 1008 (e) .)

Here, the court in this case issued its tentative ruling, denying Petitioner’s Petition for Relief from Section 945.4 (late tort claim relief), and as Pompei did not request oral argument, the tentative ruling became effective immediately and was final on January 8, 2018.

Therefore, Plaintiff had until January 18, 2018, to file a motion for reconsideration.
Plaintiff filed this 2nd Petition for Order Relieving Petitioner from Govt. Code, sec.
945.4, which is actually a motion for reconsideration, on Feb. 7, 2018, well outside the
10 day time limit.

A strict requirement of diligence is applied to the presentation of new facts, circumstances or law. (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 674, 690.) The burden under section 1008 is comparable to that of a party seeking a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence: the information must be such that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced it at the trial. ( New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212-213.)

Here, petitioner’s declaration appears to be identical to her original declaration filed Dec. 8, 2017. It reflects no new or different facts, circumstances, or law to support a C.C.P., sec. 1008 motion for reconsideration.

The Court lacks jurisdiction over this untimely motion to reconsider.