Motion for Reconsideration
All counsel and self-represented parties appearing remotely must check-in online through the court’s civil video appearance website at Civil Remote Hearings | Superior Court of California | County of Orange (occourts.org) before the designated hearing time. Once the online check-in is completed, participants will be prompted to join the courtroom’s Zoom hearing session. Participants will initially be directed to a virtual waiting room pending the start of their specific video hearing. Check-in instructions and instructional video are available at Civil Remote Hearings | Superior Court of California | County of Orange (occourts.org) The Court’s “Appearance Procedures and Information--Civil Unlimited and Complex” and “Guidelines for Remote Appearances” also are available at Civil Remote Hearings | Superior Court of California | County of Orange (occourts.org) Those procedures and guidelines will be strictly enforced.
Public Access: The courtroom remains open for all evidentiary and non-evidentiary proceedings. Members of the media or public may obtain access to law and motion hearings in this department by either coming to the department at the designated hearing time or contacting the courtroom clerk at (657) 622-5618 to obtain login information. For remote appearances by the media or public, please contact the courtroom clerk 24 hours in advance so as not to interrupt the hearings.
NO FILMING, BROADCASTING, PHOTOGRAPHY, OR ELECTRONIC RECORDING IS PERMITTED OF THE VIDEO SESSION PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 1.150 AND ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT RULE 180.
# Case Name Tentative
0. 2025-1514475 Toner vs. Aurora No tentative. The Court has questions for counsel. Counsel are Heights, LLC ordered to arrange for a court reporter to be present for the hearing.
1. 2024-1383020 Plaintiff Rolan Bigalimov’s motion for reconsideration is denied. Bigalimov vs. Alsulaiman Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the 2/25/26 minute order (ROA 131), whereby the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to set aside or vacate the “order of dismissal” taken from Plaintiff’s ruling on Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ROA 84).
When an application for an order has been “refused in whole or in part,” a party seeking reconsideration under subsection (a), can make an application to “modify, amend, or revoke the prior order.” The application must be made “to the same judge or court” within “10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order.” The application must be “based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law.” Additionally, the application must be accompanied by an affidavit, stating “what application was made
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?”
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 Civ. Proc. § 1008, subd. (a).)
Here, the Court notes that it lacks jurisdiction to grant reconsideration of the 02/25/26 minute order, because an Order of Dismissal was entered on or about 01/05/26 (ROA 124). A court loses jurisdiction to grant reconsideration once an order of dismissal (or a judgment) has been entered. (APRI Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 176, 181 “we conclude that the trial court may not grant reconsideration after judgment has been entered”].) The Court’s order of dismissal constitutes a judgment. (Ibid.)
Second, even if the Court retained jurisdiction to grant reconsideration, Plaintiff fails to present any new or different facts, circumstances, or law that warrant reconsideration. Plaintiff’s argument amounts to “the court misconstrued the (existing) law.” (The Court omits the less respectful choice of words that Plaintiff used in his motion.) However, reconsideration “cannot be granted based on claims the court misinterpreted the law in its initial ruling (as opposed to a change in the law in the interim.” (Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial at ¶ 9:330.2, citing Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.)
The Court emphasizes, though, that it rejects Plaintiff’s contention that the ruling at issue is incorrect. In the ruling on the demurrer to the FAC, Plaintiff was given leave to amend as to the claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation/slander/libel. (ROA 84.) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed the SAC whereby he re-alleged his claims for defamation, slander, and libel, as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress. (ROA 96.) If Plaintiff had wanted the ruling on the demurrer to the FAC to become the equivalent of a final judgment, then his “remedy” was to elect not to amend (i.e., not file a FAC). (National Union Fire Ins.
Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Cambridge Integrated Services Group, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 35, 44.) Because Plaintiff elected to amend, the court’s ruling on the demurrer to the FAC did not become a final judgment. While the Court did eventually enter an order of dismissal, this was following Defendants’ demurrer to the SAC (not the FAC).
Finally, plaintiff’s disagreement with prior rulings does not justify unsupported accusations concerning the integrity or motives of judicial officers. The Court has disregarded those accusations and ruled on the legal merits of the motion. Defendants shall give notice of the ruling.