Case Number:?EC063893????Hearing Date:?February 09, 2018????Dept:?A
Green v Signature Healthcare
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION?
Calendar:?????????4
Case No:?????????EC063893
Date:???????????????2/9/18
MP:?????????????????Plaintiff, Gabriel Green
RP:??????????????????Defendants, Signature Healthcare Services, LLC, Aurora Las
Encinas, LLC, and Jerry Conway
RELIEF REQUESTED:
Order reconsidering the November 3, 2017 order that granted leave to Gary Brown to withdraw from the representation of the Plaintiff
DISCUSSION:
????????????This case arises from the Plaintiff?s claim that he suffered personal injuries because he was subjected to a strip search and a drug test and he was deprived of his cell phone and medications when he sought psychiatric treatment from the Defendants.??No trial is set.
????????????At this hearing, the Plaintiff, Gabriel Green, requests that the Court reconsider the November 3, 2017 order that granted leave to Gary Brown to withdraw from the representation of the Plaintiff.??This matter was set for January 19, 2018, but was taken off calendar by the Plaintiff.??The Court did not continue the motion.??The Plaintiff did not re-file the motion.
????????????As a result, the hearing will be taken off calendar because the Plaintiff took the motion off calendar at a prior hearing, unless good cause is shown otherwise.
????????????If good cause is shown and proper notice is admitted, then the following applies.
????????????On November 3, 2017, the Court granted Gary Brown?s motion to withdraw from the representation of the Plaintiff based on evidence provided by Gary Brown that he cannot address the complex matters in this case because of??his health.??Mr. Brown also stated??that he had previously asked the Plaintiff to find new counsel.
Under section CCP section 1008(a), a party may seek reconsideration of a prior order by filing a motion within 10 days of service of the notice of order.??The motion must be based on new or different facts, circumstances, or law, and be made to the same judge that made the order.??The party making the application 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 section 1008(e) states that CCP section 1008 specifies the Court’s jurisdiction with regard to applications for renew and that no application to renew any order may be considered unless made according to section 1008.??The language of CCP section 1008(e) makes it absolutely clear that a Court’s power to hear successive motions is restricted to motions that comply with CCP section 1008, subdivisions (a) and (b).??Scott Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Ins. Co. (2003) 107 Cal. App. 4th 197, 211.
CCP section 284 permits the Court to grant leave to an attorney to withdraw from representing a party.??A review of the Plaintiff?s motion reveals no new fact, circumstance, or law that would provide any ground for the Court to reconsider the prior order by which the Court granted Gary Brown leave to withdraw.??Instead, the Plaintiff argues that he had attempted to seek a continuance of the November 3, 2017 hearing through a telephonic ex parte application, but that the Plaintiff was never heard and that this caused a violation of his due process rights.??This identifies no grounds to find that Gary Brown should not be allowed to withdraw.
Further, the Plaintiff had the opportunity in the pending motion to provide the evidence that he would have raised at the November 3, 2017 hearing, i.e., to identify the new fact, circumstance, or law that would justify denying Gary Brown?s motion.??The Plaintiff did not identify any new fact, circumstance, or law in his declaration.
In addition, Gary Brown provided notice of the hearing to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff had the opportunity to file opposition papers before the hearing.??As a result, due process was satisfied because the Plaintiff had notice and the opportunity to oppose the motion.
The Plaintiff also provided a copy of his ex parte application to continue the November 3, 2017 hearing in untabbed exhibit C to the pending motion.??A review of his ex parte application reveals that it contains no grounds to continue the hearing or to deny leave to Gary Brown to withdraw from the case.??Mr. Brown sought leave to withdraw based on his health and, under CCP section 284, the Court granted his request for leave.??The Plaintiff has offered no facts, circumstances, or law that would provide a basis to reconsider the order.
Therefore, the Court will deny the Plaintiff?s motion for reconsideration of the order granting Gary Brown leave to withdraw from this case.
RULING:
Take off calendar or deny motion.