Motion to reconsider or vacate/set aside order granting motion to quash
Plaintiff to give notice and prepare a judgment consistent with this ruling.
12 Schneider- TENTATIVE RULING: Kidan vs. Estate of Plaintiff Tracy Lynn Schneider-Kidan’s motion to reconsider or Leonard vacate/set aside the March 18, 2026, order granting Defendant Tierney Richard Chipman’s motion to quash service of summons is DENIED without prejudice as to section 473(b) relief only.
On March 18, 2026, the court granted Defendant Richard Chipman’s motion to quash service of summons. In doing so, the court found that Plaintiff failed to meet her burden of establishing by admissible competent evidence that the court may exercise general or specific jurisdiction over Defendant Chipman.
Plaintiff contends that, at the time of Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion, Plaintiff was self-represented. Further, Plaintiff had filed an omnibus opposition to multiple motions to quash. After the deadline for Plaintiff to file an opposition to the motion, the court entered a minute order on another motion to quash, admonishing Plaintiff to file separate, distinct oppositions to each motion to quash.
Plaintiff is now represented by counsel. Plaintiff contends that in the related case, Adam R. Kidan v. Chartwell Staffing Solutions, Inc., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2021-01186369 (the “Adan Kidan Action”), the issue of the court’s jurisdiction over Defendant Chipman was also adjudicated on appeal. The court of appeal held that in that related case, there was sufficient evidence to establish that Chipman had purposefully availed himself of the benefits of California in connection with the acquisition and operation of Chartwell Staffing Services, Inc. The court of appeal remanded for additional jurisdictional discovery regarding whether Chipman’s California contacts are sufficiently related to this case to establish specific personal jurisdiction.
Procedurally, the mechanisms under which Plaintiff seeks relief are both deficient.
First, Plaintiff seeks relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 for mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b)). The declaration of Plaintiff Tracy Schneider-Kidan, however, fails to detail any mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Plaintiff merely testifies that she recognized that
she could not effectively represent herself, but fails to explain what she believes is the mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect for which relief should be granted under section 473(b). Further, Plaintiff failed to include any proposed opposition to the motion to quash. (Id., (“Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted...”). To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking relief on the basis that Plaintiff could have filed a different opposition with more facts, Plaintiff fails to meet the burden under section 473 to do so.
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?”
Second, Plaintiff seeks relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. “Section 1008 governs reconsideration of court orders whether initiated by a party or the court itself.” (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1499). “It is the exclusive means for modifying, amending or revoking an order. That limitation is expressly jurisdictional.” (Id.) “When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or 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 upon 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.
The 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.” (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1008 (a).)
A court acts in excess of jurisdiction when it grants a motion to reconsider that is not based upon “new or different facts, circumstances or law.” (Gilberd, supra, at p.1499.) Motions for reconsideration are restricted to circumstances where a party offers the court some fact or circumstance not previously considered, and some valid reason for not offering it earlier. (Id.)
Here, Plaintiff fails to offer any admissible, competent, new or different facts that were not previously available and Plaintiff offers no valid reason for not offering it earlier. The court of appeal’s opinion, on which Plaintiff bases her motion, was filed on October 29, 2024—long before the court’s March 18, 2026, order granting Chipman’s motion to quash. The court finds that Plaintiff has not met her burden for the court to modify, amend, or revoke its order under section 1008.
Third, Plaintiff appears to suggest that the court of appeal opinion in a different, related case, is somehow binding in this case, where the record before the court and the parties are different. “Under the doctrine of the law of the case, a principle or rule that a reviewing court states in an opinion and that is necessary to the reviewing court's decision must be applied throughout all later proceedings in the same case, both in the trial court and on a later appeal.” (People v. Iraheta (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 1228, 1242 (emphasis added)). “Thus the law- of-the-case doctrine “prevents the parties from seeking appellate reconsideration of an already decided issue in the same case absent some significant change in circumstances.” (Id.) Plaintiff has not offered any authority to establish that an unpublished appellate opinion in another case becomes law of the case in this case.
For these reasons, the motion must be denied.
The court also notes that multiple upcoming motions are set for August 17, 2026, in this case. The caption pages on the motions still identify N16 as the department in which these motions are being heard. However, as set forth in the April 22, 2026, Minute Order on related cases, all of these motions have been reassigned to Department C27. As such, those motions will be heard in C27.
Moving party to give notice.
13 Tennis vs. TENTATIVE RULING: Comprehensive Manufacturing Plaintiff Jordan Tennis seeks leave to file a first amended complaint Services, that would remove Victory Holdco, LLC as a defendant, add L.L.C. Defendant Amtech Elevator Services (previously Doe 1), and add a cause of action for Strict Products Liability and Products Liability Negligence against Defendant Comprehensive Manufacturing Services, LLC dba Courion. (“CMS”). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff unreasonably delayed seeking leave to amend. Plaintiff had knowledge of the basis for their new cause of action earlier given that Plaintiff has known that CMS was the seller of elevator parts. Indeed, CMS responded to written discovery, detailing this fact in August 27, 2025, discovery responses. Defendants argue that Defendants will suffer prejudice if the court allows leave to amend because Defendants already have pending motions for summary judgment/summary adjudication and an amended complaint would moot those motions.