Wong vs. Makhail

without any explanation as to why the request was not made long ago.

Notably, the original cross-complaint was filed nearly three years ago, on 9/21/23. The original trial date of 9/29/25 was continued to 4/27/26, pursuant to stipulation based on outstanding discovery and counsel recently substituting into the case. (See Stip. Filed 4/15/25 [ROA 54] and Order filed 4/18/25 [ROA 58].) Thereafter, the 4/27/26 trial date was continued to 1/11/27 pursuant to another stipulation of the parties, again based on outstanding discovery. (See Stip. & Order filed 3/5/26 [ROA 117.) When granting the second trial continuance, the court stated, “No further trial continuance without a strong evidentiary showing of good cause.” (ROA 117, p. 4.)

Here, the proposed amendments are not based on newly discovered facts or evidence and there is no adequate explanation for the delay in bringing this motion. Defendants’ counsel substituted into this case on 12/22/25 (see ROAs 105 & 106) yet the motion was not filed until 5/18/26 (see ROA 123) without any explanation for the delay.

If the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the judge has discretion to deny leave to amend. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.)

The motion for leave to amend is therefore DENIED.

Trial remains set for 1/11/27.

Plaintiff to give notice.

9 Wong vs. Makhail Motion for Reconsideration

The court DENIES Plaintiffs DOUGLAS WONG and JENNIFER JING’s motion for reconsideration.

Defective Notice

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiffs’ motion fails to comply with Rules 3.1110(d) and 3.1112(a) of the California Rules of Court and the motion can be denied on that basis alone.

No notice of motion was filed and the moving papers fail to state who exactly is bringing the motion. The court assumes however that both Plaintiffs are moving parties.

The moving papers also fail to specify the relief sought. After Defendants SCOUT MOURER and POWERSTONE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT raised the issue in their opposing papers, Plaintiffs filed reply papers and a declaration stating, “we ask the Court to reconsider is the order sustaining, without leave to amend, the demurrer of Defendants Powerstone Property Management (‘Powerstone’) and Scott Mourer (‘Mourer’) to our Third Amended Complaint (‘TAC’).” (“Declaration of Jennifer Jing and Douglas Wong”, filed 8/11/26, at ¶ 3.)

As Defendants’ opposing papers also address the court’s order sustaining the demurrer to the Third Amended Complaint, the court proceeds on the analysis of whether the 5/15/26 order sustaining the demurrer to the TAC should be reconsidered.

Compliance with Section 1008

Plaintiffs have also not complied with Section 1008 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which governs motions for reconsideration. Section 1008(a) provides:

“(a) 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.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1008(a), emphasis supplied).

Here, Plaintiffs do not provide any new or different facts, law or circumstances warranting reconsideration. Rather, Plaintiffs appear to re-submit the same or similar facts and arguments made previously.

In sum, the motion is DENIED.

Defendants to give notice.

10 Mourshaki vs. Rich Motion for New Trial

The court DENIES Plaintiffs ABRAHAM NASIRI MOURSHAKI and FATEMEH N. MOURSHAKI’s motion for a new trial.

The court entered judgment on 6/29/26, and the court clerk electronically mailed the judgment to the parties on 6/30/26. (ROAs 285, 288.) Thereafter, Plaintiffs timely filed a notice of intention to move for new trial on 7/14/26. (ROA 296.)

Plaintiffs’ notice of intention to move for new trial identified the following grounds as a basis for new trial: (1) Irregularity in the proceedings which prevented Plaintiffs from receiving a fair trial; (2) Accident or surprise which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against; (3) Newly discovered evidence, material to the moving party, which with reasonable diligence could not have been fully presented before entry of judgment; (4) Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the decision; (5) The decision is against law; and (6) Error in law occurring at the proceedings and excepted to by Plaintiffs. (ROA 296.)

Despite the noticed grounds, the memorandum of points and authorities in support of Plaintiffs’ motion for new trial, however, argues only that “the evidentiary record presented to the court was materially incomplete” and that “[s]ignificant documentary evidence, factual explanations, and legal authorities relevant to the issues of causation, the nature of the loss, insurance coverage, and

10