Motion For Reconsideration Of Order Denying Special Motion To Strike
Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Thursday, July 09, 2026, Line 9.
Defendants Sharon He and Kyle Kelly's Motion For Reconsideration Of Order Denying Special Motion To Strike is DENIED.
Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(a) permits reconsideration of a prior order when the moving party shows "new or different facts, circumstances, or law" and explains why the new or different facts, circumstances, or law were not presented earlier with reasonable diligence. (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 208.) "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 of Civil Procedure section 1008(a).)
Defendants here have not identified the application that was made before, the order that was made and how the purported new or different facts justify reconsideration. Defendants cursory reference to the anti-SLAPP motion and the order denying it are not sufficient. In any event, Defendants have not identified new or different facts, that could not have been presented earlier with reasonable diligence that justifies reconsideration of the court's 3/20/2026 Order.
Defendants rely on an Entertainment Commission ("EC") correspondence that they received two days after they filed their motion. The EC correspondence was a response to Defendants' inquiry they made one day before they filed their motion. Defendants have not shown why they did not or could not have initiated their investigation earlier. In any event, the EC correspondence does not justify reconsideration of the court's 3/20/2026 Order.
Defendants also rely on Plaintiff Tibor Szabo's 3/21/2026 email. While troubling, the email does not justify reconsideration of the court's 3/20/2026 Order denying the anti-SLAPP motion.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.
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?”
Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/JMQ) | |