Motion for Reconsideration (Judge Michael E. Whitaker)

Case Number: SC125247    Hearing Date: August 20, 2025    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

            On October 2, 2024, the Court granted Defendants Rudy Eisler, individually and as trustee for the Eisler Family Living Trust; Stephen Eisler, individually and as trustee for the Eisler Family 2000 Living Trust; Theresa Eisler, individually and as trustee for the Eisler Family 2000 Living Trust; Wendy Eisler, individually and as trustee for the Eisler Family Living Trust; Eisler Investments; West End Properties; Robert Sundeen; Carole Sundeen; and Dustin Wells’ (“Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Yazmin Ortiz’s (“Plaintiff”) action for failure to bring the case to trial within five years.  (See Minute Order, Oct. 2, 2024.)

On October 2, 2024, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s action for failure to bring the case to trial within five years. (See Minute Order, Oct. 2, 2024.) The Court entered an Order dismissing the case on October 3, 2024. On October 8, 2024, the Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants.

            The Court entered an Order dismissing the case on October 3, 2024 and on October 8, 2024, the Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants.

On November 21, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Set Aside/Vacate the Dismissal. On April 8, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s second Motion to Set Aside/Vacate the Dismissal.

On June 16, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s third, fourth, and amended fourth motions to set aside or vacate the dismissal.  (Minute Order, Jun. 16, 2025.)

Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of the Court’s June 16, 2025 order.  Defendants oppose the motion and Plaintiff replies.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (a), “[w]hen 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 after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make an 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 Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a).)  Where the statutory requirements are met, reconsideration should be granted; upon reconsideration, however, the court may simply reaffirm its original order.  (Corns v. Miller (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 195, 202.)

The moving party on a motion for reconsideration “must provide not only new evidence but also a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce that evidence at an earlier time[.]” (Mink v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1342, internal quotations & citations omitted; see New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 221 [on a motion for reconsideration, a party must present new or different facts, circumstances, or law, which the moving party “could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced” in connection with the original hearing].)

JURISDICTION

“After entry of judgment, a trial court has no further power to rule on a motion for reconsideration.”  (Ramon v. Aerospace Corp. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1236.)  “Once judgment has been entered […] the court may not reconsider it and loses its unrestricted power to change the judgment. It may correct judicial error only through certain limited procedures such as motions for new trial and motions to vacate the judgment.”  (Ibid.)

This is true even where the motion for reconsideration was filed before judgment, but judgment was entered prior to the scheduled hearing.  (See Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois v. Architectural Facades Unlimited, Inc. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1477.)

Thus, the law is clear that entry of the judgment divests the Court of jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.  Once judgment has been entered, the parties are limited to pursuing post-judgment remedies.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied because the Court no longer has jurisdiction to rule on it.

            The Clerk of the Court shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling.

DATED:  August 20, 2025                             ___________________________

                                                                  Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                  Judge of the Superior Court