Motion - Reconsideration
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
Standard
“When 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 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(a).) Section 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.” (Code Civ.
Proc. § 1008(g).) 1
1 Plaintiff cites to Blue Mountain Development Co. v. Carville (1982) 132 Cal.App.3d 1005 as support for his argument that Section 1008’s new or different facts requirement does not apply to interim orders. However, Blue Mountain was decided before the 1992 amendment to Section 1008 which made the statute applicable to all orders, final or interim. (See Baldwin v. Home Sav. of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1199.) The Hartford and Rains cases cited by Plaintiff were also decided before the 1992 amendment.
To move for reconsideration on the basis of new or different facts or newly discovered evidence, the moving party must provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce that evidence at an earlier time. (Shiffer v. CBS Corp. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 246, 255
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Section 1008 is “ʽthe exclusive means for modifying, amending or revoking an order. That limitation is purely jurisdictional.’” (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1499 [citation omitted]; see also Kerns v. CSE Ins. Group (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 368, 391.) “[S]ection 1008 gives the court no authority when deciding whether to grant a motion to reconsider to ‘reevaluate’ ‘or ‘reanalyze’ facts and authority already presented in the earlier motion.” (Crotty v. Trader (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 765, 771.)
Request for Judicial Notice
Defendants’ request for judicial notice of the Complaint (Exhibit A), the Court’s October 17, 2025 Order (Exhibit B), the First Amended Complaint (Exhibit C), the parties’ papers filed in connection with the demurrer to the First Amended Complaint (Exhibits D-F), the tentative ruling on the demurrer (Exhibit G), the Court’s February 25, 2026 Order (Exhibit H), and the Notice of Entry of Order (Exhibit I), is granted. (Evid. Code §§ 452, 453.)
Discussion
Plaintiff failed to submit a declaration as required under Section 1008(a) which makes his motion invalid when filed and served. (See Branner v. Regents of University of California (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1048.)
Even if Plaintiff had filed the requisite declaration, his motion would still be insufficient to warrant the relief he seeks. Plaintiff does not discuss or even identify any new or different facts in his Memorandum. Instead, Plaintiff refers generally to a 27-page proposed Second Amended Complaint, without specifying which facts within the proposed amended pleading are new or different. This is insufficient to satisfy Plaintiff’s burden of identifying new or different facts for purposes of a motion for reconsideration.
In connection with their Opposition, Defendants have done Plaintiff’s work for him and have provided the Court with a comparison of the First Amended Complaint and proposed Second Amended Complaint. Exhibit J to Adrian Driscoll’s declaration identifies language that has been deleted and Exhibit K identifies language that has been added. These exhibits show that the changes to Plaintiff’s pleading are minimal and add only legal argument and recharacterizations
of facts previously alleged; the proposed amended complaint does not allege any actual new or different facts. The motion is therefore denied.
All parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(B) to contest the tentative decision. Parties who request oral argument are required to appear in person or remotely by ZOOM. Regardless of whether a party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the prevailing party shall prepare an order consistent with the announced ruling as required by Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.11.
The Zoom appearance information for June, 2026 is as follows: https://marin-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1605267272?pwd=908CbP6TV2mhCAyai1nzo6lyz2dKaw.1
Meeting ID: 160 526 7272 Passcode: 026935
If you are unable to join by video, you may join by telephone by calling (669) 254-5252 and using the above-provided passcode. Zoom appearance information may also be found on the Court’s website: https://www.marin.courts.ca.gov