JONES, ET AL. VS. TAYLOR
Motion for Reconsideration
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
CASE NUMBER: 22CV-0201290 Tentative Ruling on Motion for Reconsideration: Plaintiffs Tiffanie Jones, Kim Harmon, and Stephen Huston move for reconsideration of a ruling made on Defendant Sally Taylor’s Motion to Terminate the Case on May 11, 2026. While the motion was timely filed per CCP § 1008, Plaintiffs have not complied with CCP § 1005(b) which requires that the moving papers be filed and served at least sixteen court days prior to the hearing. The motion was filed on May 18, 2026 for a hearing date on June 1, 2026.
This is untimely. The Proof of Service contained within the motion does not reflect how or when the moving papers were served, is not signed, and not dated. The Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for being filed untimely and because there is no Proof of Service indicating that Defendant was noticed with the motion. Plaintiffs did not provide a proposed Order as required by Local Rule of Court 5.17(D). Plaintiffs are to prepare the Order.
5
Cited authorities
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Ask about this ruling
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”