MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (CCP 1008) AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE CCP 473(b)
August 5, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ 2:00 PM LINE 8 25-CIV-05177 JEANNETTE LONG VS. ARTICHOKE JOE’S CASINO INC.
JEANNETTE LONG PRO/PER ARTICHOKE JOE’S CASINO INC. MELISSA A. HOFFMAN
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (CCP 1008) AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE CCP 473(b)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Jeanette Long’s Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Set Aside [the Court’s April 29, 2026 Order Denying Terminating Sanctions], filed on May 1, 2026, is DENIED.
Defendant Artichoke Joe’s request for attorney’s fees is DENIED.
Plaintiff is reminded that exhibits must be properly bookmarked. That is, “electronic exhibits must include electronic bookmarks with links to the first page of each exhibit and with bookmark titles that identify the exhibit number or letter and briefly describe the exhibit.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(f)(4); see also San Mateo County Superior Court, L.R. 3.3 [“Failure to bookmark exhibits to electronically filed documents may result in rejection of the party’s efiling by the Clerk of the Court or in continuance of the hearing by the Court on the related motion.”].)
A motion for reconsideration must be “based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a).) Plaintiff has not presented new facts or legal authority. The purportedly “new fact” – an email to Ms. Long dated April 16, 2025 (Long Decl., exh. L) is not a new fact. That Ms. Long lost unidentified hard copy legal files on or about December 20, 2025 does not excuse her failure to present the email in the initial motion. Plaintiff further has not explained what documents were allegedly stolen, how that affected her prior motion, and why, given that the email continued to exist in an electronic form after the hard copy documents were purportedly taken, she did not include the email in the initial filing. “A party seeking reconsideration also must provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce the evidence at an earlier time.” (New York Times Co. v.
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?”
Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212.) Ms. Long has not done so. Accordingly, she has neither satisfied Section 1008, nor has she demonstrated “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” warranting relief. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)
Substantively, even if plaintiff had submitted the email attached as exhibit L, it would not have changed the outcome. Contrary to plaintiff, exhibit L does not “[a]dmit[]to a criminal invasion of privacy.” (Mot., at p. 2.) Rather, it refers to the settlement agreement and release of all claims between the parties, signed on April 1, 2025, relating to an alleged incident involving a photograph taken by an Artichoke Joe’s employee in the women’s bathroom, on or about March 17, 2025. (Long Decl., exh. M.) Even if that email had indicated some form of discovery abuse, the court would still have denied the request for terminating sanctions, which is a severe remedy, only taken after other lesser remedies have proved insufficient. (Dept. of Forestry and Fire 24
August 5, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ Protection v. Howell (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 154, 191 [terminating sanctions for discovery abuses are to be used sparingly because of the drastic effect of their application]; Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-280 [terminating sanctions are authorized where the evidence shows that less severe sanctions will not succeed in compelling discovery responses].)
The court DENIES defendant’s request for fees. “A California court may impose attorney fees as a sanction only when authorized by statute to do so.” (Moofly Productions, LLC v. Favila (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 993, 997.) “A court may impose sanctions under section 1008, subdivision (d), ‘as allowed by [s]ection 128.7.’ Sanctions are not ‘allowed by [s]ection 128.7’ (§ 1008, subd. (d)), unless all the requirements of section 128.7, including safe harbor, are followed.” (Ibid.) Defendant did not invoke Section 128.7 in its opposition (termed an “objection”) to plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, including the safe harbor of subdivision (c). Accordingly, there is no basis on which the court can award attorney’s fees.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, defendants’ counsel shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 and Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv), and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in this action. The order should be e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the court.
August 5, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________
2:00 PM LINE 9 26-UDL-00421 CHIU PROPERTIES, LLC VS. EDDY ADEMAR AREVALO, ET AL
CHIU PROPERTIES, LLC STEVEN T. NAUMCHIK EDDY ADEMAR AREVALO PRO PER
DEFENDANT EDDY ADEMAR AREVALO'S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant Eddy Ademar Arevalo’s demurrer to the complaint filed by plaintiff Chiu Properties, LLC is OVERRULED.
A. Defendant’s Proof of Service is Defective
As an initial matter, the proof of service fails to establish proper service on plaintiff. The proof of service includes only a box to check for service by mail, but the box is unchecked. (Proof of Service filed July 21, 2026.)
The proof of service is once again addressed to “Rothbard Law Group LLO” instead of Rothbard Law Group LLP despite the court previously pointing out this same defect with defendant’s prior proof of service. (See May 20, 2026 Order.) As the court previously stated, “[w]hile the latter is presumably a mere typographical error, “[s]ervice by mail must be made in strict compliance with the mandates of [Code of Civil Procedure] sections 1013 and 1013a. (Aquino v. Superior Court (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 104, 111.) Even minor technical defects such as omitting a law firm’s name from an address render service by mail ineffective. (Triumph Precision Products, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 362, 364 [service ineffective where mail was addressed to specific named attorney but firm’s name omitted].)” (Ibid.)
However, because plaintiff has filed an opposition to the demurrer, the court rules on the merits.
B. Legal Standards
“[I]t is well settled that a general demurrer admits the truth of all material factual allegations in the complaint [citation]; that the question of plaintiff’s ability to prove these allegations, or the possible difficulty in making such proof does not concern the reviewing court [citations]; and that plaintiff need only plead facts showing that he may be entitled to some relief [citation].” (John’s Grill, Inc. v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1003, 1013 (John’s Grill), quoting Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493, 496 (Alcorn).)
26