In the Matter of: Maria Luz Altieri-Ortiz

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with

23CV010116: IN THE MATTER OF: MARIA LUZ ALTIERI-ORTIZ 05/27/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 8D

a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE OR GORDON D. SCHABER COURTHOUSE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION.***

Self-represented Petitioner Maria Luz Altieri-Ortiz’s (“Petitioner”) motion for reconsideration is UNOPPOSED but is DENIED.

Background

On December 5, 2024, this Court granted Respondent Robert G. Nielsen’s (“Respondent”) motion for summary adjudication as to the first cause of action in Petitioner’s “Petition to Invalidate Trust Based on Undue Influence; and for Damages for Elder Abuse.” On August 1, 2025, the Court denied Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s December 5, 2024 order, finding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate the existence of any new or different facts, circumstances, or law.

On August 6, 2025, the Court granted Respondent’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Respondent’s evidence was sufficient to show that Petitioner did not have standing to assert a claim for elder abuse on behalf of Decedent and that Petitioner failed to meet her burden to demonstrate a triable issue of material fact. The Court signed the proposed order on September 5, 2025, and Judgment was entered in favor of Respondent on November 7, 2025.

On December 10, 2025, the Court denied Petitioner’s unopposed motion for sanctions under California Rules of Court, rule 2.30, against Respondent and his counsel Carlena Tapella (“Tapella”).[1] The Court denied the motion on the grounds that Petitioner failed to file a declaration in support of her argument and that Petitioner’s memorandum of points and authorities failed to set forth any substantive argument as to why sanctions would be appropriate. The Court found that, based on the moving papers before it, there was no evidence of any violation of the rules of court that would warrant a sanction.

On December 23, 2025, Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration. It does not appear from the Court’s Register of Actions that there is proof of service on Respondent in connection with

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV010116: IN THE MATTER OF: MARIA LUZ ALTIERI-ORTIZ 05/27/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 8D

this filing.[2] On March 4, 2026, Petitioner filed proof of service of the Notice of Motion and Motion for Reconsideration, setting forth that service was effected by mail on Respondent’s counsel.

On May 6, 2026, Petitioner filed a Notice of Amended Motion for Reconsideration. On May 12, 2026, Petitioner filed proof of service, showing that the Notice of Amended Motion and Motion for Reconsideration with supporting documents was served, by mail, on Counsel for Respondent on May 12, 2026. On May 13, 2026, Petitioner filed another proof of service, showing service by mail of “Declaration” on Respondent, through counsel; this appears to relate to a declaration filed on May 13, 2026, though it is not clear whether that declaration is meant to be associated with the pending motion. On May 18, 2026, Petitioner filed and served two additional declarations in support of the pending motion, for which proof of service shows service by mail on Counsel for Respondent.

Analysis

Petitioner now seeks reconsideration of the Court’s December 12, 2025 order denying Petitioner’s motion for sanctions. Petitioner’s request for sanctions appears to be based on her allegations that Tapella has knowingly prepared and submitted false affidavits in support of Respondent’s motions for summary adjudication and summary judgment.

As an initial matter, it appears from the Register of Actions that the pending motion was not timely served under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005. Section 1005, subdivision (b) provides, in relevant part:

Unless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing. The moving and supporting papers served shall be a copy of the papers filed or to be filed with the court. However, if the notice is served by mail, the required 16-day period of notice before the hearing shall be increased by five calendar days if the place of mailing and the place of address are within the State of California . . . .

In this case, it appears that the first time the Amended Motion for Reconsideration was served on Respondent was on May 12, 2026, via mail. This is only 11 court days prior to the hearing date on this motion. Accordingly, service is defective with respect to the Amended Motion for Reconsideration and any documents filed and served in support of the pending motion after that date.

Turning to the merits of the motion, the Court finds that Petitioner has not met her burden in establishing a basis for reconsideration of the Court’s December 10, 2025 Order.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (a) provides:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV010116: IN THE MATTER OF: MARIA LUZ ALTIERI-ORTIZ 05/27/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 8D

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.

A court “acts in excess of jurisdiction when it grants a motion to reconsider that is not based upon ‘new or different facts, circumstances, or law.’” (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.)

“Courts have construed section 1008 to require a party filing an application for reconsideration or a renewed application to show diligence with a satisfactory explanation for not having presented the new or different information earlier.” (Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 830, 839 [emphasis added]; New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212-213.) Where a moving party “easily could have obtained” the proffered “new” evidence previously, or had the “new” evidence in its possession since the outset of litigation, the evidence is not “new” for purposes of section 1008. (New York Times, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at 213-14.) “The burden under section 1008 is comparable to that of a party seeking a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence: the information must be such that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced it at the trial.” (Id.; see also Foothills Townhome Assn. v.

Christiansen (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 688, 692 disapproved on another ground in Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82 [plaintiff's belief that certain evidence was not necessary at hearing on summary judgment motion insufficient to justify reconsideration].)

Further, the burden is on the moving party is to provide “a satisfactory explanation for failing to provide the evidence earlier, which can only be described as a strict requirement of diligence.” (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690.) The court in Garcia held

[S]ection 1008’s reference to “new or different” facts [does] not make the section’s prerequisites less restrictive. [Section 1008 requires a] threshold showing of diligence which has long required an “explanation” of why the “newly discovered” matter was not presented earlier. Garcia would have us say this requirement is met by anything not previously ‘presented’ to the court. The miserable result would be to defeat the Legislature’s stated goal of reducing the number of reconsideration motions and would remove an important incentive for parties to efficiently marshal their evidence.

(Id. at 688-89.) The court further found that “[t]he information consisting of Garcia's own

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV010116: IN THE MATTER OF: MARIA LUZ ALTIERI-ORTIZ 05/27/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 8D

declared knowledge was obviously always within his possession, and no satisfactory explanation appeared for not bringing it out earlier,” such that it was not the sort of “new” evidence required by section 1008. (Id. at 690.)

Here, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate the existence of any new or different facts, circumstances, or law. Petitioner largely reiterates her arguments from her motion for sanctions, wherein she alleges that Tapella knowingly prepared and submitted false affidavits and declarations. However, Petitioner again fails to specify exactly what violations of California Rules of Court, rule 2.30 on which she bases her motion for sanctions. Instead, Petitioner cites to Rule 4.1 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct and Rule 8.4 of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, neither of which are found under the California Rules of Court.

Petitioner presents no compelling argument regarding why these additional legal bases were not previously raised or how they would be a basis for sanctions under the previously noticed motion for sanctions brought pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.30.

To the extent Petitioner purports to proffer new facts, it appears such facts include a declaration from attorney Daniel Hunt (“Hunt”), Respondent’s former counsel, from her separate action against him (Case No. 25CV028148). Petitioner asserts that Respondent and/or his Counsel Tapella submitted a “false and/or invalid declaration” of Hunt in support of the summary judgment motion. The declaration in the summary judgment motion provides that Hunt sent a Notification by Trustee on February 3, 2023 and on March 30, 2023 to various addresses.

In the January 30, 2026 declaration, Hunt attests to these same facts and that no attorneys or other person ever advised him or his firm that he was not to contact Petitioner. (Jan. 30, 2026 Hunt Decl., ¶ 9.) Plaintiff previously contended, and continues to contend, that she was never sent notice of the existence of the Trust, arguing that she had repeatedly informed Respondent that he was not supposed to contact her directly and that he was only to contact Russel Marne (“Marne”), whom she indicates was her attorney of record at the relevant time.

The Court does not find that Petitioner’s submission of the declaration from Hunt evidences fraud or misconduct on behalf of Tapella and/or Respondent, supports a violation of California Rules of Court, or demonstrates that sanctions should be awarded.

Likewise, to the extent that Petitioner submits other filings by Ms. Tapella, as counsel for Respondent, or assertions regarding the conduct of Ms. Tapella or Respondent, the Court does not find that such submissions evidence fraud or misconduct on behalf of Tapella and/or Respondent, supports a violation of California Rules of Court, or demonstrates that sanctions should be awarded as requested in the previous motion for sanctions. The Court also notes that it appears that a number of the facts and submissions advanced by Petitioner were known and available prior to the filing of the prior motion for sanctions. With respect to these facts and submissions, Petitioner has not shown that such facts are “new.”

For the foregoing reasons, the motion for reconsideration is therefore DENIED.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV010116: IN THE MATTER OF: MARIA LUZ ALTIERI-ORTIZ 05/27/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 8D

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required. [1] The Motion for Sanctions was filed on July 28, 2025, prior to the entry of Judgment in this matter. [2] Subsequently, on or about January 9, 2026, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal. Based on the “Appeal Packet” on

the Court’s Register of Actions, it appears the Appeal was from the Court’s November 17, 2025 Order denying Petitioner’s requested Ex Parte Application. On April 30, 2026, the Court of Appeal issued remittitur, dismissing the appeal after determining that the order appealed from is nonappealable.