Alarcon, Sr. v. Monroe et al.

(35) Tentative Ruling

Re: Alarcon, Sr. v. Monroe et al. Superior Court Case No. 18CECG00898

Hearing Date: May 7, 2026 (Dept. 501)

Motion: by Plaintiff for Reconsideration

Tentative Ruling:

To deny.

If oral argument is timely requested, such argument will be entertained on Tuesday, May 12, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 501.

Explanation:

Plaintiff Frank Alarcon, Sr., by and through his Successor-in-Interest Frank Alarcon, Jr. (“plaintiff”) seeks reconsideration of a prior order granting summary judgment pursuant only to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 states, in pertinent part:

When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and ... 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 on 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. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008, subd. (a), emphasis added.)

Section 1008 further states that “[t]he 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.” (Ibid.)

Facts which the party seeking reconsideration was aware of at the time of the original ruling are not new, or different. (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 689-690.) To otherwise seek reconsideration based on new facts, 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.) Some courts have summarized the above as a required showing of “changed circumstances” (see Wilson v. Science Applications Int’l Corp.