Brian Claire vs Manuel Groto et al

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 1 Honorable Eunice Lee, Presiding TBD, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

DATE: September 1, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call the Court at (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to also let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling, in accordance with California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) and Local Rule 8D.

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS 9:00 A.M. LINE 1 23CV411676 Brian Claire vs Motion to Set Aside Default/Judgment Manuel Groto et al Scroll down to Line 1 for Tentative Ruling.

LINE 2 24CV430173 Lee (aka Lit) Leong Motion to Quash vs Ashley A. Lopez OFF CALENDAR. On March 26, 2026 the parties notified the court of a settlement agreement. LINE 3 24CV438701 James Bodwin vs Motion for Sanctions Persimmons, Inc. Scroll down to Line 3 for Tentative Ruling.

LINE 4 25CV456187 Curtis Edwad Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special McGovert vs Q2 Interrogatories, Request for Production of Document, and Sanctions Fiber Communic- Scroll down to Line 4 for Tentative Ruling. ations Inc. et al LINE 5 25CV462288 Kourosh Zahedi et Motion Judgment on the Pleadings al vs Volkswagen Scroll down to Line 5 for Tentative Ruling. Group of America, Inc. et al LINE 6 25CV473786 Jane Doe 1 vs Motion for Change of Venue Rafael Ramirez et al Scroll down to Line 6 for Tentative Ruling.

LINE 7 25CV474250 Adelita Mendez Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff’s Law Firm Gonzalez vs Costco Scroll down to Line 7 for Tentative Ruling. Wholesale Corpor- ation et al LINE 8 25CV477635 Mid-Century Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Insurance Company Documents, and Sanctions vs Justin Collins Scroll down to Line 8 for Tentative Ruling.

LINE 9 25CV480281 Salvador Ortiz vs Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs General Motors Scroll down to Line 9 for Tentative Ruling. LLC

9:00 A.M. Calendar Line # 1 Case Name Brian Claire vs Manuel Groto et al Case No. 23CV411676 Motion to Set Aside Default/Judgment

I. BACKGROUND

A. BRIEF FACTUAL BACKGROUND On February 14, 2023, Plaintiff Brian Claire filed a Complaint alleging eight causes of actions arising from a wrongful eviction case against Xin Huang aka Thomas Huang, Manuel Groto, Joe Paigly, Mark Dehart, Tanya Demaria, and DOES 1 through 20 (collectively “Defendants”).

B. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On April 15, 2024,Plaitniff filed an entry of default against Defendant Xin Huang aka Thomas Huang (“Huang”). On March 19, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Court Judgment for default against Defendant Huang for $292,405.25 that was not entered as no judgment was provided. Defendant Huang filed an opposition to the entry of judgment on March 21, 2025. Plaintiff resubmitted a default judgment on May 1, 2025 and on November 18, 2025 filed an application for default judgment. The Honorable Roberta Hayashi took the matter under submission on November 24, 2025, and on December 12, 2025, ordered default judgment in the total amount of $195,103.39 in favor of the Plaintiff and against Defendant Huang.

On March 10, 2026, Defendant Huang filed a motion to set aside and vacate the default judgment entered against him on April 15, 2024. On September 11, 2025, the Honorable Shella Deen denied the motion as untimely and failure to meet his burden. Defendant Huang then filed a motion for reconsideration that was continued July 13, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 18. After the hearing, the Honorable Shella Deen denied Defendant Huang’s motion for reconsideration.

C. PRESENT MOTION On July 21, 2026, Defendant Huang filed another motion to set aside and vacate the default judgment. The motion was accompanied by a proof of service indicating electronic mail service to Plaintiff’s counsel on that same day.

Plaintiff opposes the motion and filed opposition papers on August 19, 2026.

On August 25, 2026, Defendant Huang filed a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition.

The Court has carefully reviewed the following: Defendant Huang’s motion, including a notice, Declaration of Thomas Huang, and memorandum of points and authorities (totaling 16 pages); Defendant Huang’s Index of Exhibits and attached Exhibits A- J (totaling 49 pages); Plaintiff’s opposition (totaling 10 pages); Defendant’s reply brief tilted “opposition to plaintiff attorney’s memorandum of points and authorities filed on 8/19/2026” (totaling 6 pages); proof of service; and the pleadings.

II. LEGAL STANDARD Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, a non-prevailing party may make a motion to reconsider and enter a different order under the following conditions: (1) brought before the same judge that made the order sought to be reconsidered; (2) made within 10 days after service upon the party of the notice of entry of the order (extended under Code of Civ. Proc., § 1013 for type of service); (3) based on new or different facts, circumstances 3

or law than those before the court at the time of the original ruling; (4) supported by a declaration stating the previous order, by which judge it was made, and the new or different facts, circumstances or law claimed to exist; and (5) the motion must be made and decided before entry of judgment. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1008).

A motion for reconsideration must be made to the same judge. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1008(a)). “A trial court’s discretion to reconsider another judge’s prior ruling is necessarily narrow and usually only appropriate when the prior judge is unavailable.” (Marriage of Oliverez (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1247). “[O]ne trial court judge may not reconsider and overrule a ruling by another trial court judge, unless the first judge is unavailable.” (Davcon, Inc. v. Roberts & Morgan (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1361).

“To be entitled to reconsideration, a party should show that (1) evidence of new or different facts exist, and (2) the party has a satisfactory explanation for failing to produce such evidence at an earlier time.” (Mink v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1342). The moving party must demonstrate that such newly discovered evidence could not, with reasonable diligence, have previously discovered and produced. (Wilcox v. Ford (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1170). The legislature intended to restrict motions for reconsideration to circumstances where a party offers the court some fact or circumstance not previously considered and some valid reason for not offering it earlier. (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500).

“No application to reconsider any order or for the renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to this section.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1008(e)); see also, Powell v. County of Orange (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1573, 1577 [“The name of a motion is not controlling, and, regardless of the name, a motion asking the trial court to decide the same matter previously ruled on is a motion for reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008.”]). Therefore, the moving party must comply with the requirements of section 1008, regardless of the title of the noticed motion.

Reconsideration cannot be granted based on claims the court misinterpreted the law in its initial ruling because this is not a “new” or “different” matter. (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500).

III. ANALYSIS Here, Defendant Huang fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, which sets forth the procedures for setting up a motion for reconsideration. On July 13, 2026, the Honorable Shella Deen heard and denied the motion for reconsideration. This stems from Judge Deen’s September 11, 2025 order, denying Defendant Huang’s motion to set aside and vacate the default judgment under Code of Civil Procedure 473(b) et al. Code of Civil Procedure requires that this motion be brought before the same judge that made the order sought to be reconsidered (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1008). Defendant Huang does not offer any new or different facts or circumstances that support a rehearing of the issue. Defendant Huang was afforded multiple opportunities to explain this request.

IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

The Court will prepare the formal Order.

// // //

4