Case Name: ?? Charlene Lee v. Alphabet Company, Google, Inc., Larry Page, and Sundar Pichai
Case No.: ?????? 16CV290331
Plaintiff brings this ?Motion to object to Demurer (sic) the case,? which the Court presumes to be intended as a motion for reconsideration of the Court?s order sustaining Defendants? unopposed demurrer, without leave to amend, which was filed on April 11, 2016. The Court has analyzed and considered Plaintiff?s motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008.
Initially, the Court notes that Plaintiff?s moving papers appear to be insufficient and defective in form and content, under California Rules of Court 3.110, 3.112, 3.113. To the extent that the Court can decipher the statements contained within the single spaced, nine pages of text submitted by Plaintiff ? none of which are evidentiary statements as they are not made under penalty of perjury ? Plaintiff does not set forth any legal or factual basis for relief, nor even clearly identify the nature of the relief sought. The additional 38 pages of exhibits, some of which are not in English, are not properly authenticated and do not appear on their face to have any relevance or evidentiary value.
CCP ? 1008(a) permits any party asking the Court to reconsider a prior order to
?make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order.?
CCP ? 1008 ?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.?
Treating Plaintiff?s moving papers as a motion for reconsideration, the Court finds that Plaintiff does not comply with the mandatory requirements of Code of Civil Procedure ? 1008.
Plaintiff did not move for Reconsideration within 10 days after service of the Order.
CCP ? 1008(a) states that any party asking the Court to reconsider a prior order must
move ?within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order.? Plaintiff had actual notice in court at the hearing on March 23, 2016; the Order was filed on April 11, 2016; and Plaintiff was served with the Notice of Entry of Order on April 15, 2016. Plaintiff?s moving papers, filed on May 11, 2016, are therefore untimely.
Further, Plaintiff?s motion is not an affidavit made under penalty of perjury.
Any party seeking reconsideration must ?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.? CCP ? 1008(a).
Plaintiff has not provided new facts, circumstances, or law.
Plaintiff has not provided admissible evidence of new or different facts,
circumstances, or law that would provide a basis for the court to a different determination.
There has not been a change of law that warrants reconsideration.
CCP ? 1008(c) allows the Court, if at any time it determines there has been a change
of law that ?warrants it to reconsider a prior order it entered, it may do so on its own motion and enter a different order.? The Court has not determined there has been a change of law and has not been presented with any evidence of change of law.
As Plaintiff?s moving papers fail state any basis for relief, under ?1008 or any other
factual or legal basis, Plaintiff?s motion is DENIED.
The Court will sign the Proposed Order Entering Judgment for Defendants Against Plaintiff, which has been submitted by Defendants following the Court?s Order Sustaining Defendants? Demurrer to Plaintiff?s Complaint.