NORDEMAN vs BURTON

24CV064327: NORDEMAN vs BURTON 07/27/2026 Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees filed by Leonard Nordeman (Plaintiff) CRS# 645157469303 in Department 15

Tentative Ruling - 07/24/2026 Peter Borkon

The Motion for Reconsideration filed by Leonard Nordeman on 04/20/2026 is Denied.

John Conwell, counsel for deceased plaintiff Leonard Nordeman, moves for reconsideration of this Court’s Order dated 4/9/2026.

Nineteen months after denying Defendant Burton’s special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 425.16, and ten months after Plaintiff’s death, attorney Conwell filed a motion for $34,772.50 in attorneys’ fees. Despite the delay and the death of the Plaintiff (of which Conwell failed to notify the Court), the Court found Conwell’s motion timely and awarded $18,167.50 in attorneys’ fees pursuant to section 425.16(c).

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.” (CCP § 1008(a).) The moving party must present “a satisfactory explanation for failing to provide the evidence earlier, which can only be described as a strict requirement of diligence.”(Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690.)“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.)

Conwell fails to satisfy this burden. Conwell argues that the Court abused its discretion in failing to award fees jointly against Defendant and her counsel, Steven Vondran; Conwell contends that Vondran was jointly liable for attorneys’ fees under CCP section 128.5 because Vondran appearance on behalf of Defendant (i.e., in filing the anti-SLAPP motion) was a general rather than a special appearance. This issue was briefed in the underlying fee motion and the Court ruled that Vondran was not jointly liable for the fee award. Conwell does not cite any new facts, circumstances, or law that could not have been discovered or produced earlier; rather, Conwell submits the same 7/15/2024 email that he submitted in support of the fee motion. (See Conwell Decl. filed 12/3/2025, Ex. C.)

Because Conwell fails to meet the threshold requirement for reconsideration, the motion is DENIED.