Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Court’s Order on Summary Judgment
2023CUPP014867: JOHN BA DOE, et al. vs SIMI VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. 05/27/2026 in Department 43 Motion for Reconsideration
The morning calendar in courtroom 43 will normally begin at 8:45. Please arrive for your hearing no later than 8:30 a.m. The door will be opened before the calendar is called.
The Court allows appearances by CourtCall and Zoom. Refer to the Courtroom 43 webpage for more information about remote appearances. If appearing by CourtCall, call in no later than 8:30 a.m. If you wish to appear by CourtCall, you must make arrangements with CourtCall by 4:00 p.m. the court day before your scheduled hearing. Requests for approval of a CourtCall appearance made on the morning of the hearing will not be granted. No exceptions will be made.
For Zoom appearances, all counsel appearing by Zoom must email the court at Courtroom43@ventura.courts.ca.gov with a simultaneous copy to all other counsel/selfrepresented parties no later than 3:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing. INCLUDE THE PHRASE "ZOOM APPEARANCE ON (DATE OF HEARING)" IN THE SUBJECT LINE OF YOUR EMAIL. The email must identify the person who will make the appearance. You will receive the login information for your appearance in reply to your email. If appearing by Zoom, log into the hearing no later than 8:30 a.m. The Court will transfer you to the meeting room when your matter is called. Additional instructions can be found on the Courtroom 43 webpage. When you log in to Zoom, be sure that your name and the case name are used as your Zoom name. IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW ALL OF THESE INSTRUCTIONS, YOU WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO APPEAR BY ZOOM AT THE HEARING.
With respect to the tentative ruling below, no notice of intent to appear is required. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling you can fax notice to Judge Coats's secretary, Ms. Brantner at 805- 477-8790, stating that you submit on the tentative. Or you may email Courtroom43@ventura.courts.ca.gov with all counsel copied on the email. Do not call in lieu of sending a fax or email. If you submit on the tentative without appearing and the opposing party appears, the hearing will be conducted in your absence. If you are the moving party and do not advise the Court that you submit on the tentative, or you do not appear at the hearing, the Court may deny your motion irrespective of the tentative.
Unless stated otherwise at the hearing, if a formal order is required but not signed at the hearing, the prevailing party shall prepare a proposed order and comply with CRC 3.1312 subdivisions (a), (b), (d) and (e). The signed order shall be served on all parties and a proof of service filed with the court. A "notice of ruling" in lieu of this procedure is not authorized.
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?”
Motion: Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration of Courts Order on Summary Judgment.
Tentative Ruling: Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration of Courts Order on Summary Judgment is DENIED. The newly discovered evidence does not materially impact the Courts prior ruling.
2023CUPP014867: JOHN BA DOE, et al. vs SIMI VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.
The new evidence does not establish a disputed issue of fact as to whether an employees had knowledge or should have had knowledge of Nickroos extreme conduct.
DISCUSSION
I.
Legal Standard
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 make the order sought to be reconsidered; (2) made within 10 days after service upon the party of the notice of entry of the order; (3) based on new or different facts, circumstances 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 Civ. Proc., § 1008.)
Motions for reconsideration are restricted 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.) There is a strict requirement of diligence - i.e., the moving party must present a satisfactory explanation for failing to provide the evidence or different facts earlier. (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690.) The burden under Section 1008 is comparable to that of a party seeking a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence i.e, the information must be such that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced it at trial. (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212-213.)
After the entry of a judgment, or an order having the effect of a judgment because it finally determines the parties rights, a motion for reconsideration or renewal as to matters included in the judgment or order is improper. (Eddy v. Sharp (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 858, 863, footnote 3 [motion for reconsideration improper after entry of summary judgment]; Ten Eyck v. Industrial Forklifts (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 540, 545 [same]; Passavanti v. Williams (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1602, 1605 [same].) After entry of judgment, a trial court has no further power to rule on a motion for reconsideration. A court may reconsider its order granting or denying a motion and may even reconsider or alter its judgment so long as judgment has not yet been entered.
Once judgment has been entered, however, the court may not reconsider it and loses its unrestricted power to change the judgment. It may correct judicial error only through certain limited procedures such as motions for new trial and motions to vacate the judgment. (Ramon v. Aerospace Corp. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1236, citing Passavanti v. Williams, supra, at p. 1606.)
The Court notes that it is well-established that a mere disagreement with the Courts reasoning or ruling does not constitute a sufficient ground for reconsideration, nor do new or different facts or circumstances that are collateral to the merits of the original order. (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.)
II. Application As a threshold matter, Plaintiffs cites to three new documents as new facts that warrant reconsideration of the Courts order on summary judgment. Plaintiffs satisfy the requirement for
2023CUPP014867: JOHN BA DOE, et al. vs SIMI VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.
reconsideration that these documents are new evidence and that Plaintiffs were unaware of their existence until after the Court heard the motion for summary judgment.
Based on the Courts March 23, 2026, minute order granting summary judgment, the Court found that the relevant key missing factual was that Plaintiffs did not demonstrate that any SVUSD employees had actual or constructive notice of Nickroos misconduct. Significantly, the new documents, 14 Legal Duties of SV Football Coach list, Campus Supervisor Handbook, and Locker Room Supervision Schedules, are generic documents that are not reflective of Nickroos conduct. As such, these documents do not support a finding of disputed material facts regarding SVUSDs knowledge of Nickroos actions. Even if there was evidence that Nickroo violated these policies, a violation of these policies does not infer knowledge of the extreme misconduct of Nickroo.
These documents do not impact a failure to demonstrate a disputed fact as to extreme and outrageous conduct for IIED and do not impact immunity for Nickroos off-campus acts.
3