Delma Jrmar Jefferson v. Samuel Gene Dana, et al.

34-2021-00311004-CU-PA-GDS: Delma Jefferson vs. Samuel Gene Dana 08/09/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other to Reconsider/ Vacate Tentative Ruling in Department 36

Tentative Ruling

The following is the Court’s joint tentative ruling on Plaintiff Delma Jrmar Jefferson’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for reconsideration and ex parte application for clarification and amendment. This is a consolidated action involving Lisa Garcia v. Toyota Motor Corporation, et al., Case No. 34-2022-00325754 (the “Garcia action”) and Delma Jrmar Jefferson v. Samuel Gene Dana, et al., Case No. 34-2021-00311004 (the “Jefferson action”). The consolidated actions each involve claims for personal injuries arising from a car accident that occurred on September 27, 2020.

As pertinent here, the complaint alleges causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence against Samuel Gene Dana (“Dana”) and Denise G. McCarney (“McCarney”) (collectively “Defendants”). On June 13, 2024, the Court issued orders granting a motion by Defendants to enforce a settlement against Plaintiff, denying Plaintiff’s motion to rescind the settlement, and denying Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint. On June 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration and a separate ex parte application to clarify and amend the Court’s June 13, 2024 tentative rulings.

Plaintiff’s motion and ex parte application seek the same ten requests for relief. Accordingly, the Court orders a joint hearing on the motion and application and will issue a single order. (Code of Civil Procedure § 1048.) Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the ruling on the Motion to Enforce Settlement. The Court notes Plaintiff filed a further motion for leave to amend which is scheduled for concurrent hearing. In light of the Court’s tentative ruling granting the motion for leave to amend, any request for clarification or reconsideration of the Court’s ruling on the prior motion for leave to amend is denied, as moot.

Plaintiff requests clarification as to whether the Court’s June 13, 2024 order dismissing the Defendants was intended to apply only to the Garcia action. The subject of the motion to enforce settlement was a stipulated settlement signed by Plaintiff on November 7, 2023 following mediation with Defendants. (Plaintiff Decl., Exh. A.) The stipulated settlement indicates it is a “complete and total settlement of [Plaintiff’s] claims for personal injury, damage

34-2021-00311004-CU-PA-GDS: Delma Jefferson vs. Samuel Gene Dana 08/09/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other to Reconsider/ Vacate Tentative Ruling in Department 36

and harm caused by the automobile accident that occurred on September 27, 2020. [Plaintiff] will dismiss his complaint with prejudice and will release said Defendants Dana and McCarney from liability for injury, damage and harm (whether known or unknown, and whether past, present, or future).” (Ibid.) Based on this language, the Court found Plaintiff entered a binding settlement to release Defendants Dana and McCarney, only, from claims arising from the September 27, 2020 action. Plaintiff’s complaint in the Jefferson action asserts claims arising from the September 27, 2020 action. (Complaint, p. 5.)

Thus, the scope of the release applies to Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants Dana and McCarney in the Jefferson action. The Court clarifies that its order applies to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in the Jefferson action and dismisses those claims. As an aside, the Court notes Defendant have not yet submitted a proposed judgment of dismissal for the Court’s signature as directed in the Court’s June 13, 2024 order granting the motion to enforce. Defendants are again directed to do so. Plaintiff’s remaining requests for relief are, in effect, arguments explaining why Plaintiff believes the Court’s June 13, 2024 rulings are in error and requesting the Court reconsider and reverse its prior rulings.

Any request for reconsideration initiated by a party must comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure § 1008. (Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC (“Zohar”) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 830 citing Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094.) Thus, any request for consideration must be “based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law[.]” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a); Le Francois v. Goel, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1098.) The Court will not reconsider a prior ruling where the “new” or “different” facts or circumstances are collateral to the merits of the initial motion, nor a litigant’s mere disagreement with the trial court’s factual findings, interpretations of law, or other rulings sufficient grounds for reconsideration. (Gilberd v.

AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.) Further, the “party seeking reconsideration must provide not just new evidence or different facts, but a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce it at an earlier time.” (Glade v. Glade (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1457.) If the moving party fails to satisfy these requirements, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion for reconsideration. (Gilberd v. AC Transit, supra, 32

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00311004-CU-PA-GDS: Delma Jefferson vs. Samuel Gene Dana 08/09/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other to Reconsider/ Vacate Tentative Ruling in Department 36

Cal.App.4th at p. 1502.) Here, Plaintiff’s motion merely expresses disagreement with the Court’s interpretation of the validity and scope of the stipulated settlement and that the ruling is the result of bias and prejudice. This is not a proper ground for reconsideration. (Gilberd v. AC Transit, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 1500.) Plaintiff’s affidavit does not identify “what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown” that justify reconsideration, as required by Code Civ.

Proc. § 1008(a), or to provide a satisfactory explanation as to why any such new of different facts, circumstances or law were not presented at the time of the initial hearing. Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction to reconsider its prior rulings. Plaintiff’s motion for clarification is granted to the extent the Court clarifies the order enforcing the stipulated settlement applies to any claims against Defendants Dana and McCarney, only, arising from the September 27, 2020 accident and that the judgment for dismissal as to those defendants, only, applies to the Jefferson action.

All other requests for clarification, amendment of prior rulings and/or reconsideration are DENIED.

***

This tentative ruling shall become the Court’s final ruling unless a party wishing to be heard so advises the clerk of this department no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day preceding the hearing, and further advises the clerk that such party has notified the other side of its request for hearing. The parties may appear remotely through the use of Zoom. The parties may join the Zoom session by audio and/or video through the link/telephone number which can be obtained by contacting the clerk of the court at dept36@saccourt.ca.gov or (916) 874-7661 no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the scheduled hearing. In the event that a hearing is requested, oral argument shall be limited to no more than 30 minutes per side. Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code section 68086 and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00311004-CU-PA-GDS: Delma Jefferson vs. Samuel Gene Dana 08/09/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other to Reconsider/ Vacate Tentative Ruling in Department 36

California Rules of Court, rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf. 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 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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided. In the event that this tentative ruling becomes the final ruling of the Court, the order will be effective immediately.

No formal order or other notice will be required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)