Case Number: BC622751 Hearing Date: January 03, 2019 Dept: 3

GARRETT D. BOYD,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

DONALD CONWAY, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO: BC622751

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

January 3, 2019

On 11/09/18, the Court heard Defendant’s motion to require Plaintiff to post bond. The Court took the matter under submission, and issued its ruling on 11/13/18. The Court found Defendant met its moving burden to show Plaintiff was obligated to post a bond in order to proceed with this action. The Court struck Plaintiff’s opposition as untimely filed. The Court also noted that, to the extent it was considering the opposition, the opposition made an insufficient showing that Plaintiff was indigent and entitled to relief from the bond posting requirement.

On 11/21/18, Plaintiff filed this motion for reconsideration of the 11/13/18 order. Plaintiff argues there are new facts to support reconsideration of the prior order obligating him to post bond. Specifically, he provides additional information showing he is indigent, and contends this additional information supports relief from the bond filing requirement.

The motion is denied for two reasons. First, Plaintiff posted bond on 12/13/18, and the motion appears to be substantively moot.

Second, the Court finds the motion does not adequately articulate “new facts or circumstances” to support reconsideration. The legislative intent was to restrict motions for reconsideration to circumstances where a party offers the court some fact or circumstance not previously considered, and some valid reason for not offering it earlier. Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500. A party seeking reconsideration of a prior order based on “new or different facts, circumstances or law” must provide a satisfactory explanation for failing to present the information at the first hearing; i.e., a showing of reasonable diligence. Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690. A motion for reconsideration is properly denied where the motion is based on evidence that could have been presented in connection with the original motion. Morris v. AGFA Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1460.

Plaintiff failed to present, in his motion for reconsideration, any facts that could not have, with reasonable diligence, been presented at the prior hearing. The motion is therefore denied on substantive grounds as well.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.