ARIZA v LAKESIDE VENTURES, LLC, et al

ARIZA v LAKESIDE VENTURES, LLC, et al

22CV46059

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

This matter involves a lengthy and ongoing dispute over the sale of a mobile home estate located at 1475 Railroad Flat Road, Mokelumne Hill, CA (“Mobile Home Estate.”)

On April 24, 2026, the Court granted a motion for terminating sanctions filed by Lakeside Ventures, LLC and Bonnie K. Tuckerman-Aho (Hurley) (“Defendants.”) At the same time, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for relief from an earlier order imposing sanctions against her related to an expert deposition.

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 1008.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(a) provides, in relevant part: (a) 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.

Section 1008(e) provides further that “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.” In applying this subdivision, Courts require the moving party to first demonstrate that there are grounds for reconsideration because of new or different facts, circumstances or evidence. (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212.) Second, the moving party must “provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce the evidence at an earlier time.” (Ibid.) As she has repeatedly argued throughout this case, Plaintiff reiterates her position that the Defendants unlawfully allowed her to pay for a property they never intended to sell her because of alleged fraud or deceit. However, the

motion is devoid of any new facts, circumstances and evidence that would require the court to reconsider the order granting terminating sanctions. While Plaintiff presents evidence that she was ill and confused on the hearing date, this is insufficient to meet the burden established by Code Civil Procedure section 1008. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Additionally the Court notes that CCP Section 1008 (d) provides that any violation of this section – such as filing a motion for reconsideration without any supporting new facts or law, including a declaration detailing how and why these facts or law could not have been determined before the prior hearing – may be punished as contempt and with sanctions as allowed by CCP Section 128.7. However, noting the ruling in question terminated plaintiff’s case and exposes her to provable damages pursuant to the cross-complaint, the Court finds in the interests of justice and equity that no further sanctions should be assessed. The Court will proceed with the scheduled Default Hearing on damages related to the cross-complaint.

The clerk shall provide notice of this ruling to the parties forthwith. Defendants to submit formal Orders complying with Rule 3.1312 in conformity with this Ruling.