JASON VISCARRA VS. ELLEN POON ET AL

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC24615306 - May 7, 2026 Hearing date: May 7, 2026 Case number: CGC24615306 Case title: JASON VISCARRA VS. ELLEN POON ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24615306 | Case Title: | | JASON VISCARRA VS. ELLEN POON ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-05-07 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | CONTINUED TENTATIVE RULING FOR PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT | Rulings: | | CONTINUED TENTATIVE RULING FOR PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ---Judgment was filed on July 5, 2025 (and it would not have been possible for counsel to have "failed" to attach something that did not yet exist to the filing).

Ms. Alexander's declaration (Section V) proceeds to state that the purported omissions pertained to filings in November 2025. It is not clear how omissions relating to filings in November 2025 are relevant to relief sought in conjunction with the motion for summary judgment has have been fully briefed, heard and ruled upon months before November 2025. Therefore, it is unclear from the Notice of Motion exactly what relief is being sought and why under CCP 473(b) as it relates to the Order Granting for Summary Judgment when inadvertent omissions were in conjunction with filing of a motion for reconsideration in November 2025.

Points and Authorities in support of the Motion discuss the relief under CCP 473(b) in conjunction with retained expert testimony "due to attorney error" making statements such as "attorney error leads to exclusions of significant evidence" and "failure to consider such evidence materially affected the ruling and warrants discretionary relief." According to the supplemental declaration of Ms. Alexander, expert has not been retained and his "testimony" has not been available until after the hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment. It is again unclear how evidence that did not exist could have been "excluded" or could have been subject to "failure to consider." Neither the notice of motion, points and authorities nor the supplemental declaration of Ms. Alexander shed any light on the request for relief under CCP 473(b) as it pertains to the ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment at the time that it has been made.

It is possible that the moving party is seeking relief for its failure to obtain the evidence earlier or to time seeks continuance for discovery, however, the Court would not venture to guess, especially on a motion based on attorney error, which has to be documented in a declaration per CCP 473(b). As to the "newly-discovered" evidence in support of the motion for reconsideration, there is no explanation whatsoever why this evidence has not been obtained earlier given the procedural posture and the timeline of this case. For example, why experts have not been retained earlier? Why defendant has not been deposed earlier/if there were issues with deposition why no motion to compel or a motion to continue hearing on the motion for summary judgment was not filed?

The motion (including all supplemental filings) is confusing, incomprehensible and not in compliance with procedural requirements. This appears to be a pattern. See ex-parte application filed in a wrong department, opposition separate statement not in conformity with the rules, omitted declarations, notices of errata, etc. The Court is to rule on the cases on the merits. It is impossible to determine the merits of this motion as it is drafted and presented to the Court at this time.

The Court intends to avoid an additional CCP 473(b) motion based on failure to properly present this CCP 1008/473(b) motion. Therefore, the Court will continue the hearing on this motion to July 23, 2026. No later than June 25, 2026 Plaintiff to file a coherent, well-organized and properly supported motion (including notice of motion, motion, points and authorities and evidence); opposition and reply to be filed in accordance with the new hearing date. =(501/CFH) | |