Motion to set aside order declaring Plaintiff a vexatious litigant; Motion for reconsideration
Nine days later, on March 19, 2026, the court entered an order relieving James Ling of Ling Law Group, APC as counsel for Defendant. The court ordered James Ling to serve notice of the court’s order relieving counsel, an OSC re why Defendant’s answer should not be stricken, and the moving papers on Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on Defendant.
On March 19, 2026, James Ling filed a declaration stating that he served the court’s order relieving Ling as counsel and Plaintiff’s moving papers on the motion for summary judgment, on Defendant by email. At that point, however, Defendant would be akin to a self-represented party. California Rule of Court 2.251(c)(3)(B) provides that self-represented parties “are to be served by non-electronic methods unless they affirmatively consent to electronic service.” By serving Defendant by email rather than mail, the court has grave concerns whether or not Defendant has had notice of the order relieving Ling as counsel and/or the hearing date of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Further, on April 16, 2026, the court entered an order striking Defendant’s answer as an unrepresented corporation. It is unclear whether or not Defendant received proper notice of this order.
While Plaintiff has no blame for the current situation and the oversight of counsel James Ling has caused Plaintiff unnecessary delay, to ensure Defendant’s due process, the court orders that Plaintiff to serve written notice and a copy of: (1) the court’s order relieving James Ling of Ling Law Group, APC as counsel for Defendant, (2) the continued hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, (3) the moving papers on Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, (4) and the court’s order striking Defendant’s answer, all by mail within 5 court days of this order.
Once Plaintiff serves said notices/documents, Plaintiff may alternatively immediately proceed with default/default judgment procedures in lieu of proceeding on the motion for summary judgment.
The Case Management Conference scheduled for July 16, 2026, is continued to July 23, 2026, at 01:30 pm in Department C10.
Plaintiff shall give notice.
3 Hulsey vs. Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Rickie Hulsey move to set aside the Court’s Nguyen January 22, 2026, order declaring Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
A motion for reconsideration made by a party must be based on new or different facts, circumstances, or law than those before the court at the time of the original ruling. (
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?”
order was made; and (4) what new or different facts, circumstances or law are claimed to be shown. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a).) A party seeking reconsideration also must provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce the evidence at an earlier time. (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 213.)
A motion for reconsideration must be filed within 10 days of service on him of notice of entry of the order in question. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a).) The 10-day deadline for seeking reconsideration is extended under Code Civ. Proc. § 1013 for service by mail, fax, electronic service or overnight delivery, which applies “in the absence of a specific exception provided for by this section or other statute or rule of court.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1013(a), (c), (e).)
Plaintiff’s motion is titled, “NOTICE OF MOTION RECONSIDERATION TO PLAINTIF VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, POS WAS UNTIMELY, WRONG CASE NUMBER, WRONG HEARING DATE OF 1/22/2025, SERVICE WAS VOID RICKIE HULSEY’S DECLARATION.” However, Plaintiff’s notice of motion states that Plaintiff seeks “an order vacating as void the Court's order declaring Plaintiff a vexatious litigant and imposing a prefiling order.” (Motion at p. 1.) Thus, it is not even clear that Plaintiff seeks reconsideration. Indeed, Plaintiff’s motion does not even reference Code Civ. Proc. § 1008, the statute governing motions for reconsideration.
Insofar as it is a motion to vacate to set aside the January 22, 2026, order declaring Plaintiff a vexatious litigant, it is duplicative of the motion filed on January 29, 2026, and is denied for the same reasons that motion was denied.
Insofar as it is a motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff provides no basis for reconsideration of the January 22, 2026, order. Plaintiff provides no new or different facts, circumstances, or law than those before the court at the time of the original ruling. The Court has already addressed Plaintiff’s challenges to that January 22, 2026, order and ruled that those challenges lack merit.
The motion is denied.
Clerk to give notice. 4 NiMO Holdings, Plaintiff NiMO Holdings, LLC’s motion for attorneys’ fees is GRANTED, LLC vs. All Home in part. Lending, Inc. The court awards attorneys’ fees in the reduced amount of $20,111.00.
The court awards cost in the amount of $1,134.00, as previously set forth in this court’s 5/21/26 ruling on the motion to tax costs.
Basis for Attorneys’ Fees
5