GHANI vs STANDARD LAKESIDE I, LP, et al.

24CV085509: GHANI vs STANDARD LAKESIDE I, LP, et al. 07/23/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration filed by STANDARD LAKESIDE I, LP (Defendant) + CRS# 949007732357 in Department 23

Tentative Ruling - 07/21/2026 Ruben Sundeen

The Motion for Reconsideration filed by APARTMENT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, LLC, STANDARD LAKESIDE I, LP, STANDARD LAKESIDE GP LLC, STANDARD PROPERTY COMPANY INC. on 05/26/2026 is Granted in Part.

Defendants Standard Lakeside I, LP (“Standard”) and Apartment Management Consultants, LLC (“AMC”) move for reconsideration of two orders dated 5/26/2026. In those orders the Court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte applications to depose the Persons Most Knowledgeable (“PMQs”) of Standard and AMC.

A motion for reconsideration requires the moving party to “state by affidavit ... what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” (Code Civ. Proc. (“CCP”) § 1008(a).) “The burden under section 1008 is comparable to that of a party seeking a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence: the information must be such that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced it at the trial.” (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212-213.) The Court also has the authority “to reconsider its own prior interim orders so it may correct its own errors.” (Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1107, emphasis added.) “If a court believes one of its prior interim orders was erroneous, it should be able to correct that error no matter how it came to acquire that belief.” (Id. at 1108.)

According to Defendants, the Court’s 5/26/2026 orders were based on the mistaken belief that Plaintiff’s applications were uncontested, when in fact Defendants filed and served their oppositions on 5/20/2026. (See Bouman Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, Exs. A-E.) Defendants ask that the Court reconsider or correct its orders.

The record reflects that Defendants filed and served their opposition to Plaintiff’s ex parte applications on 5/20/2026. The Court therefore agrees that it is appropriate to amend its 5/26/2026 orders to acknowledge that Defendants opposed Plaintiff’s ex parte applications. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is GRANTED IN PART. The Court hereby amends the 5/26/2026 orders to reflect that Defendants opposed Plaintiff’s ex parte applications to depose PMQs.

Having reviewed Defendants’ opposition to the applications, the Court declines to modify its 5/26/2026 orders any further. Defendants opposed Plaintiff’s ex partes on the ground that Plaintiff improperly sought to question PMQs about crime statistics and unrelated crimes that occurred in the surrounding community. On 7/6/2026 the Court granted in part Defendants’ request for a protective order and precluded Plaintiff “from relying on or asking about generalized crime statistics that do not relate to the subject property or the underlying incident in written discovery questions or deposition questions to percipient witnesses.” (See Order dated 24CV085509: GHANI vs STANDARD LAKESIDE I, LP, et al. 07/23/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration filed by STANDARD LAKESIDE I, LP (Defendant) + CRS# 949007732357 in Department 23 7/6/2026.)

Accordingly, the Defendants’ concerns related to the use of crime statistics and “reptile theory” questions at deposition have largely been addressed and resolved.

*If a party does not timely contest the tentative ruling and appear at the hearing, the tentative ruling will become the order of the Court.*

How to Contest a Tentative Ruling

Through the eCourt Public Portal

To contest a tentative ruling, notify the Court and all parties no later than 4:00 p.m. one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue by completing the following steps:

1. Log into the eCourt Public Portal.

2. Select Case Search.

3. Enter the case number and select Search.

4. Select the case name.

5. Select the Tentative Rulings tab.

6. Click Contest This Ruling.

7. Enter your name and reason for contesting.

8. Select Proceed.

You must also send notice to the department, Dept23@alameda.courts.ca.gov, which copies all opposing parties by 4:00 p.m. one court day before the hearing.

Remote Appearance Information

For Department 23 Zoom appearance information, please visit:

https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov/?q=node/397/1152402

Please provide this information to any self-represented or opposing parties.

Parties must appear IN PERSON for Motions for Summary Judgment or Summary

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV085509: GHANI vs STANDARD LAKESIDE I, LP, et al. 07/23/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration filed by STANDARD LAKESIDE I, LP (Defendant) + CRS# 949007732357 in Department 23 Adjudication.