Motion for Reconsideration; Motion to Vacate Judgment
CAPERS v. JUVENILE DEPENDENCY COURT et al.
Motion: (1) Motion for Reconsideration (2) Motion to Vacate Judgment Movant: Petitioner Ma’lenna Capers (in pro per) Respondent: Respondent Superior Court of California (erroneously sued as San Bernardino Juvenile Court)
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL/FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On December 19, 2024, Petitioner Ma’lenna Capers, in pro per, filed a petition for relief from the claim presentation requirement under the Government Claims Act.
On June 13, 2025, the Court denied the petition after finding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that she presented a claim for damages and/or an application to present a late claim to Respondent within one year from the date her claim accrued.
On June 20, 2025, Petitioner filed a “motion to vacate dismissal and reinstate case,” which the Court denied on August 6, 2025. The Court ordered the case dismissed as to all parties.
On August 15, 2025, the Court signed and filed its order of dismissal and judgment in favor of Respondent, and against Petitioner.
On August 21, 2025, Respondent filed a notice of entry of judgment.
On September 2, 2025, Petitioner filed a “motion to reconsider dismissal and reinstate case.” Respondent filed an opposition. Petitioner filed a reply (along with a “response to tentative ruling”).
On October 17, 2025, the Court denied the motion.
On October 20, 2025, Respondent served a notice of ruling.
Now before the Court is Petitioner’ motions to: (1) reconsider dismissal; and (2) vacate the judgment. Both motions were filed on May 11, 2026. Respondent filed a combined opposition. To date, Petitioner has not replied.
DISCUSSION
Motion to Reconsider Dismissal
In the notice, Petitioner states she seeks an order to reconsider the Court’s prior dismissal of the case entered on October 17, 2025. Petitioner is incorrect about the date of entry of the dismissal, which was August 15, 2025. She seeks to raise issues about being unable to attend the hearing on October 17, 2025. But as part of her argument and conclusion, Petitioner requests the Court reconsider its prior dismissal of the case.
A motion for reconsideration must: (1) be made within 10 days after service of the notice of entry of the order or ruling; (2) be based on new or different facts, circumstances or law; and (3) be accompanied by a declaration stating what previous “application” was made, the ruling thereon, and what new or different facts, circumstances or law are claimed to exist. (
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?”
A party seeking reconsideration of a prior order based on “new or different facts, circumstances or law” must provide a satisfactory explanation for failing to present the information at the first hearing, i.e., a showing of reasonable diligence. (California Correctional Peace Officers Ass’n v. Virga (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 30, 47, fn. 15.)
Page | 6
As Respondent correctly argues, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration fails because it is brought after entry of the judgment. To the extent Petitioner seeks to set aside the dismissal, once judgment is entered, the court cannot entertain or decide a motion for reconsideration. But the court has discretion to treat it as a motion for new trial. (Marshall v. Webster (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 275, 281; Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 187, 193; Ten Eyck v. Industrial Forklifts Co. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 540, 545 [invalid motion for reconsideration did not extend time for appeal].)
Because judgment had already been entered before Petitioner filed her motion, Petitioner’s motion is untimely to the extent she seeks to set aside the dismissal. There is also no basis to treat this motion as a new trial motion given the time to file a new trial motion has passed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 659.)
To the extent Petitioner’s motion is directed to the October 17, 2025, denial of Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, the motion also is untimely, because it was filed more than 10 days after Respondent served the notice of ruling on October 20, 2025. On that basis, the Court denies the motion.
Motion to Vacate Judgment
Petitioner’s motion states she seeks to vacate the judgment entered on October 17, 2025, under Code of Civil Procedure sections 473 and 663. Again, the judgment of dismissal was entered on August 15, 2025.
Respondents correctly argue that to the extent Petitioner seeks to vacate the judgment of dismissal under Code of Civil Procedure section 663, the motion is untimely. A motion to vacate judgment must be made within 15 days of service of the written notice of entry of judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 663a, subdivision (a)(2).)
The 15-day deadline of section 663a, subdivision (a), is jurisdictional and cannot be extended due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (Garibotti v. Hinkle (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 470, 479.) Here, the motion was served more than 15 days after written notice of entry of judgment on August 21, 2025.
Further, by its terms, a section 663 motion to vacate results in the Court entering a new judgment.
To the extent Petitioner seeks relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), Respondent again correctly argues that the motion is untimely. Under section 473, subdivision (b), the motion must be filed within a “reasonable time,” not exceeding six months after the judgment was entered. Here, Petitioner’s motion to vacate the judgment was required to be filed by February 15, 2026.
Respondent also points out that at the August 6, 2025, hearing on Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Reinstate Case, Petitioner attended the hearing and indicated that she intended to submit on the Court’s tentative ruling denying her motion and file an appeal. (Wagner Decl. (filed Sept. 10, 2026) ¶ 2.) Therefore, Petitioner decided to allow her case to be dismissed.
Page | 7
RULING
The Court denies Petitioner Ma’lenna Capers’ motion for reconsideration and motion to vacate judgment. Defendant, as the prevailing party, is ordered to serve formal notice of the Court’s ruling.
Dated: August 13, 2026
____________________________ Judge Nicole Quintana Winter
Page | 8