What is a Motion to Reconsider?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Reconsider

Recent Rulings on Motion to Reconsider

AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK VS. MILLER

Almost immediately thereafter, the Defendant filed his motion for reconsideration/vacation of the summary judgment order. A review of the Defendant’s motion to vacate the summary judgment does not disclose that the defendant is claiming a full defense to the Plaintiff’s causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CHUNG & ASSOCIATES LLC ET AL VS XAVIER RUFFIN ET AL

On March 22, 2019, the court denied Defendants’ motion to reconsider the court’s February 26, 2019 order denying Defendants’ motion to vacate terminating sanctions. On September 25, 2019, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for issue sanctions, finding that the damages amount Defendants received from Cashmere’s customers are correct and presumed to be the proper amount of damages. On October 6, 2019, the court denied Defendants’ motion to reconsider the September 25, 2019 order on issue sanctions.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

THE MOTIVA GROUP INC VS GLOBAL IMPACT GROUP INC

Assuming this is not an improper Motion for reconsideration, the charging documents sufficiently allege noncompliance despite an ability to comply. In addition, Defendant Holleran's own communications appear to admit an ability to provide the requested documentation. Motion to Discharge Counsel as to N.S.B.A. Before reaching a decision on this concurrent Motion, the Court requests further briefing.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

KIM D MIDDLETON ET AL VS HOLLYWOOD HEALTH CENTER INC ET AL

The court therefore DENIES the motion as an improper motion for reconsideration of Judge Feffer’s August 4, 2017 ruling. C. Request for Relief Under Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) Plaintiff alternatively requests relief from the court’s ruling under section 473(b). Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) provides for two distinct types of relief — commonly differentiated as “discretionary” and “mandatory” — from certain prior actions or proceedings in the trial court. Luri v. Greenwald, 107 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

HUNTER VS. INTERNATIONAL TOWING, INC.

The Motion for Reconsideration filed on July 20, 2020, the Motion for Reconsideration filed on July 27, 2020, and the “Amended and Supplemental Motion to Set Aside Requests for Admissions Deemed Admitted Order and for Outstanding Discovery Sanctions not Responded to Order as to Patrol Masters, Inc. Entered on 7-17-20, and; Motion to Set Aside Discovery Sanctions not Responded to Order as to Newport Terrance Association Entered on 7-10-20” filed on August 7, 2020 are denied.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

REDWOOD MORTGAGE INVESTORS VIII, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP VS ERINA GILERMAN

Similarly, the proof of service filed on September 10, 2020 was attached to the reply and purported to evidence service of documents entitled “Renewed Motion and Motion to Reconsider Ruling re Related Cases; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Thomas Sands, Exhibits” on September 10, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ZULA TUCKER LIVING TRUST VS STANLEY D. BOWMAN; ET AL

Hearing Date: September 17, 2020 Moving Parties: Cross-defendant Fred Tucker Responding Party: None Motion for Reconsideration The court considered the moving papers. RULING The motion is DENIED. BACKGROUND On January 11, 2018, Zula Tucker LT (self-represented) filed a complaint against Stanley D. Bowman for (1) legal malpractice, (2) professional negligence, and (3) fraud. On April 11, 2018, Stanley D.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

DE LOS REYES VS ASHLEY FURNITURE

Plaintiff Jennifer De Los Reyes' Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Summary Judgment to Defendant Ashley Furniture is denied. Plaintiff does not present any new or different facts as required pursuant to CCP § 1008 which would merit reconsideration of the motion.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

ELLE BI VS TONY E. LUND

Although Plaintiff stylizes the motion as one to set aside or vacate a default, this is not a proper characterization, as it is more accurately described as a motion for reconsideration.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

BEDIRIAN ENTERPRISES, INC. VS LEONID KAMENETSKY, ET AL.

Petrominerals Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 187, 193 [upholding authority of trial court to construe a motion for reconsideration as a motion for a new trial; “a trial court is ‘free to consider the motion regardless of its label’].) CCP §2033.300 provides in pertinent part as follows: (a) A party may withdraw or amend an admission made in response to a request for admission only on leave of court granted after notice to all parties.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LEV SMORODINSKY VS LIEBERMAN SOFTWARE CORPORATION

SC127232 Hearing Date September 15, 2020 Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Terminating Sanctions On January 30, 2020 the court issued a tentative ruling on plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, including terminating sanctions, ordering defendant to produce requested discovery. After oral argument, which defendant failed to attend, the court modified its tentative ruling and issued terminating sanctions, in part based on defendant’s repeated failure to appear and to pay ordered sanctions.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

GAVIN V. TRUE

Plaintiff’s (Opus Bank) Motion for Reconsideration of Defendant Franklin True’s Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Motion), filed on 2-19-20 under ROA No. 569, is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

FARLEY POLLARD ET AL VS NICHOLAS ABRAMOVIC ET AL

On 2/04/20, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the motion for summary judgment. The Court found Plaintiffs adequately showed that a variety of procedural errors and miscommunications resulted in their failure to timely oppose the motion. The Court re-set the motion for hearing on 3/13/20 to permit Plaintiffs to substantively oppose the motion. On 3/13/20, the Court called the matter for re-hearing. The Court issued a tentative ruling granting the motion for summary judgment.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

TREVOR SELKIRK VS GRASSHOPPER HOUSE LLC ET AL

Rptr. 2d 57] [affirming award of attorney fees including fees incurred in opposing discovery request and motion for reconsideration]; American Humane Assn. v. Los Angeles Times Communications (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1104 [112 Cal. Rptr. 2d 488] [documentation for attorney fee motion should include “the total cost of the special motion to strike and any related discovery permitted by the court”]; see Wilkerson v. Sullivan (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 443, 446 [121 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JOSEPH GRESSIS VS CORPORATE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

As Plaintiff notes, this is essentially an untimely motion for reconsideration. (Lennar Homes of California, Inc. v. Stephens (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 673, 681 (noting that “a motion asking the trail court to decide the same matter previously ruled on is a motion for reconsideration”).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JEROME OGDEN VS LIUMEIBANG ORGANIZATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

SUBJECT: (1) Motion for Reconsideration Moving Party: Defendants Liumeibang Corporation and Long Wu Resp. Party: Plaintiff Jerome Ogden SUBJECT: (2) Motion for Reconsideration Moving Party: Plaintiff Jerome Ogden Resp. Party: Defendants Liumeibang Corporation and Long Wu Defendants’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOSEPH GRESSIS VS CORPORATE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

As Plaintiff notes, this is essentially an untimely motion for reconsideration. (Lennar Homes of California, Inc. v. Stephens (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 673, 681 (noting that “a motion asking the trail court to decide the same matter previously ruled on is a motion for reconsideration”).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

YES ONLINE INC VS EXCLUSIVE GLOBAL LOGISTICS INC

It therefore remains denied, and, to the extent that the Collection Agency's supplemental papers attempt to revive the motion, they are an improper motion to reconsider. (Moreover, the Motion for Sanctions was far more related to the Demurrer to Cross-Complaint that also came on-calendar on July 31, 2020 in that the sanctions were sought in response to the failure to withdraw the Cross-Complaint.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SHASHIKANT JOGANI VS HARESH JOGANI ET AL

Realty, Commonwealth Investments, Mooreport Holdings, and Gilu Investments’ motion for reconsideration of Judge Mooney’s acceptance of the February 3, 2020 CCP 170.6 challenge, finding the challenge untimely and reassigning the cases back to Department 68.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

YES ONLINE INC VS EXCLUSIVE GLOBAL LOGISTICS INC

It therefore remains denied, and, to the extent that the Collection Agency's supplemental papers attempt to revive the motion, they are an improper motion to reconsider. (Moreover, the Motion for Sanctions was far more related to the Demurrer to Cross-Complaint that also came on-calendar on July 31, 2020 in that the sanctions were sought in response to the failure to withdraw the Cross-Complaint.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

THOMAS LASK VS VICTOR ZASLOW

SC128008 Hearing Date September 10, 2020 Motion for Reconsideration of Ruling on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment Plaintiff alleges structures on defendant’s property (spa, pergola and pavers) allegedly encroach on his property.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

KEITH OLDHAM, ET AL VS JAY PRESS, ET AL

On July 16, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

LIMITED CONS. OF MATTHEW SCHWAB JR

., court denied Motion for Reconsideration and deemed it a Petition for Termination of Guardianship. Court may set the matter for trial.

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

AMMAR AHMAD VS SEAN ROBBINS ET AL

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS OFF CALENDAR Plaintiff Ammar Ahmad’s Motion for Reconsideration is placed OFF CALENDAR. “A court may reconsider its order granting or denying a motion and may even reconsider or alter its judgment so long as judgment has not yet been entered. Once judgment has been entered, however, the court may not reconsider it and loses its unrestricted power to change the judgment.

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2020

LYDIA HARRIS VS KEVIN GILLIAM

This Action Again: In September 2019, this Court mistakenly granted Harris’ motion to set aside a default judgment: The Court corrected and reversed, pursuant to WCC’s motion for Reconsideration (December 2019). Harris filed her own motion for reconsideration which was denied in March 2020. Harris again moves to set aside the judgment on the ground that the Court’s two previous rulings did not address all of her bankruptcy claims.

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 160     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.