HUANG vs ULTIMO SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS INC

25CV125016: HUANG vs ULTIMO SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS INC 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration filed by Dongsheng Huang (Plaintiff) CRS# A-125016-001 in Department 17

Tentative Ruling - 09/02/2026 Chad A. Stegeman

The Motion for Reconsideration filed by Dongsheng Huang on 07/31/2026 is Denied.

The Motion of Plaintiff Dongsheng Huang (“Plaintiff”) for Reconsideration is DENIED on procedural and substantive grounds. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a).)

LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTION TO RECONSIDER California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1008 governs motions made by a party for reconsideration of any order. Code Civ. Proc. §1008(e). The Court must first determine whether the statutory requirements of the motion are met before considering the merits of the prior order. (See, e.g., G.R. v. Intelligator (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 606, 622 [court lacked jurisdiction to hear a defective motion for reconsideration].) A motion for reconsideration must be (1) brought before the same judge who made the original order; (2) made within ten days after service of notice of entry of the original order; (3) based on new or different facts, circumstances or law; (4) supported by a declaration setting forth the previous order, the judge who made it, and the new or different facts, circumstances or law claimed to exist.

Code Civ. Proc. §1008(a). Facts which a party seeking reconsideration was aware of at the time of the original motion are not “new or different facts” to support a grant of reconsideration. (In re Marriage of Herr (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1468 [citing Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690].)

PROCEDURAL DEFECTS

As an initial matter, the Motion was filed without proper notice. Generally, motions should be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing date, in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 1005(b). The motion was filed on July 31, 2026, setting a hearing for August 13, 2026. Plaintiff only provided 9 court days notice for the hearing, which is insufficient under CCP § 1005. Plaintiff’s untimely reply argues, without any evidence, that he originally tried to file the motion on 7/28/2026. Even assuming there were evidence to support this argument, Plaintiff still did not give adequate notice.

As Plaintiff acknowledges in his moving papers at page 2, for motions for reconsideration, service of the motion is required within 10 days of the subject order sought to be reconsidered per CCP section 1008(a). This a jurisdictional requirement. The Court sustained Defendant Ultimo Software Solutions Inc. (“Defendant”)’s Demurrer without leave to amend on July 16, 2026, the court served notice of the order by email on the same day, and Defendant filed the Notice of Entry of Order the same day with service by email. (Register of Actions.)

Including additional time based on service by email, Plaintiff had until July 28, 2026 to request reconsideration pursuant to CCP §1008(a). The motion was untimely filed on July 31, 2026. Plaintiff’s argues that he originally tried to file the motion on 7/28/2026, which would have been timely, but his filing was rejected because he did not have a reservation number. 25CV125016: HUANG vs ULTIMO SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS INC 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration filed by Dongsheng Huang (Plaintiff) CRS# A-125016-001 in Department 17 Exhibit 5 to Plaintiff’s declaration in support of his reply demonstrates that he was given a reservation number on July 21, 2026, by the court clerk and advised that the number must be included in the moving papers to avoid having them rejected.

Ultimately, Plaintiff did not adequately prepare his documentation and did not timely file the motion.

SUBSTANTIVE DEFECTs

Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is also denied because he did not identify any “new or different facts, circumstances or law,” in connection with the decision for which he seeks reconsideration, and instead he relies on summarizing his Complaint. (MPA, pp. 4:11-8:6.) This is insufficient. There is nothing supporting his motion that could not have been presented in the Defendant’s opposition papers. (See Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500; and Mink v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1342.)

The motion for reconsideration under CCP § 1008 is denied on procedural and substantive grounds. Review of the US District Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s ARB appeal on 8/8/2023 on a motion to dismiss did not affirm the ARB appeal, rather, the judgment of dismissal was against Plaintiff. The subsequent decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal affirming the District Court’s dismissal, did not affirm the ARB decision. The Supreme Court of the United States’ denial of Plaintiff’s petition for a writ of certiorari did not affirm the ARB decision. As Plaintiff avers in his complaint, the US District Court’s judgment of dismissal did not become final until 6/1/2025.

To the extent this court can clarify the record on its own volition, it will issue an amended order on the demurrer.

If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court.

HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?

THROUGH ECOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search” 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling” 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV125016: HUANG vs ULTIMO SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS INC 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration filed by Dongsheng Huang (Plaintiff) CRS# A-125016-001 in Department 17 8. Select “Proceed”

BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely.

BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.