Frank Cruz v. Mortgage Default Services, LLC

(03) Tentative Ruling

Re: Frank Cruz v. Mortgage Default Services, LLC Court Case No. 24CECG03048

Hearing Date: August 11, 2026 (Dept. 403)

Motion: Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Summary Judgment

Tentative Ruling:

To deny plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s order granting summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1008, subd. (b); 473, subd. (b).)

If oral argument is timely requested, it will be entertained on Thursday, August 13, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 403.

Explanation:

First, the court has already entered a judgment based on the order granting summary judgment, so it no longer has jurisdiction to grant reconsideration of its order. (Ramon v. Aerospace Corp. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1237–1238 [holding trial court had no jurisdiction to rule on the motion for reconsideration once it granted a final judgment in the case.]) The court entered the judgment in favor of defendant Labbett on February 10, 2026. Plaintiff did not file his motion for reconsideration until February 13, 2026, three days after the judgment was entered. Therefore, the court lost jurisdiction to grant reconsideration before the motion for reconsideration was filed, and the court has no authority to grant reconsideration now.

In addition, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the judgment on July 10, 2026, which had the effect of depriving the trial court of jurisdiction to hear the motion for reconsideration. (Vallejo v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 132, 144.) As a result, the court cannot grant the relief that plaintiff seeks, as it has lost jurisdiction to reconsider the matter after the filing of the judgment, as well as the appeal of the judgment. Consequently, the court intends to deny the motion for reconsideration.

Even if the court did have jurisdiction to grant relief, plaintiff has failed to show any new facts, circumstances, or law that would justify reconsideration of the order. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (a), a party moving for reconsideration of a court order must show that there are “new or different facts, circumstances, or law” that justify reconsideration of the order. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008, subd. (a).) Failure to submit an affidavit that complies with the requirements of section 1008(a) renders the motion invalid and deprives the court of jurisdiction to hear the motion. (Branner v.

Regents of University of California (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1048.) Also, “[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. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212, internal citations omitted.) The requirement that the moving party explain why the new facts were not presented sooner 3

“can only be described as a strict requirement of diligence.” (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690, citation omitted.) The requirements of section 1008 are “expressly jurisdictional.” (Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 830, 839–840.) Thus, failure to comply with the requirement of demonstrating new facts, circumstances, or law requires denial of a motion for reconsideration. (Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1104.)

Here, plaintiff moves for reconsideration because he claims that he was too ill to oppose the defendant’s summary judgment motion. However, the fact that plaintiff was ill in the weeks prior to the summary judgment hearing does not constitute the type of “new facts or circumstances” that warrant reconsideration. Plaintiff was clearly aware of his illness at the time the summary judgment motion was pending, so his illness was not a “new fact” for the purpose of reconsideration. Rather, it was a fact that was in plaintiff’s knowledge well before the hearing on the summary judgment motion.

He has not explained why he did not attempt to obtain a continuance of the hearing from the court before the court heard the matter, or why he did not even notify the court of his health problems. If he had done so, the court would likely have granted a continuance of the motion until he had recovered enough to file opposition. Now that the court has already heard and granted the motion for summary judgment, as well as entering judgment based on the order, plaintiff’s belated assertion that he was too sick to file opposition is not a valid reason to reconsider the court’s order.

Therefore, plaintiff has not met his burden of showing that there are new facts, circumstances, or law that justify reconsideration, nor has he given a satisfactory explanation for his failure to present the new facts earlier. As a result, the court intends to deny the motion for reconsideration.

Likewise, plaintiff has not shown that he is entitled to relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). Section 473(b) states that, “The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or the party's legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against the party through the party's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) “To warrant discretionary relief here, the proffered evidence must show that the attorney's error was excusable.

Neglect is excusable only if a reasonably prudent person in similar circumstances might have made the same error. Relevant factors in assessing counsel error include: ‘(1) the nature of the mistake or neglect; and (2) whether counsel was otherwise diligent in investigating and pursuing the claim.’ ‘Conduct falling below the professional standard of care, such as failure to timely object or to properly advance an argument, is not therefore excusable.’ ‘To hold otherwise would be to eliminate the express statutory requirement of excusability and effectively eviscerate the concept of attorney malpractice.’” (Huh v.

Wang (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1423, citations omitted.)

In addition, the fact that plaintiff here is self-represented does not mean that he is exempt from the requirements of section 473(b). “[M]ere self-representation is not a ground for exceptionally lenient treatment. Except when a particular rule provides otherwise, the rules of civil procedure must apply equally to parties represented by counsel and those who forgo attorney representation... A doctrine generally requiring or permitting exceptional treatment of parties who represent themselves would lead to a quagmire in the trial courts, and would be unfair to the other parties to litigation.” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984–985, citation omitted.) 4

Here, plaintiff has not shown that his failure to oppose the motion for summary judgment was the result of mistake, surprise, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. Nor has he shown that he acted with reasonably prudence. While he claims that he was too ill to oppose the motion, he has not shown that he could not have at least filed an ex parte request for a continuance or made a phone call to the court and requested a continuance of the hearing until he had recovered enough to file a full opposition. His failure to alert the court to his medical condition and request a continuance was not reasonable or prudent. Thus, he has not shown that he is entitled to relief under section 473(b).1 Consequently, the court intends to deny plaintiff’s motion for relief from the order granting summary judgment.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling

Issued By: SMC on August 10, 2026. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

1 Plaintiff has also failed to submit a copy of the proposed pleading that he seeks to file if relief is granted, which in this case would be his opposition to defendant’s summary judgment motion. Nor has plaintiff shown that he has any valid arguments to make in opposition to summary judgment, or that he could submit any evidence raising a triable issue of material fact with regard to the facts presented in defendant’s motion. Therefore, plaintiff has not complied with section 473(b)’s requirement to submit a copy of his proposed pleading. Nor has he shown that he would be able to present any valid arguments or evidence that would allow him to oppose the motion, which constitutes an additional ground for denying relief here.

5