BOE vs DEACON CORP.

24CV005025: BOE vs DEACON CORP. 08/28/2025 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure: To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below.

If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court. Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED. Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and 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/courtreporters/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.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion of plaintiff in pro per “Jon Boe” for reconsideration of the Court’s prior order denying the “omnibus motion” he filed on 12/19/2024 is DENIED as follows.

Factual Background

This action was commenced in 2024 and appears to arise from allegations that the defendant, a construction company, performed construction work on property adjacent to plaintiff’s and caused unspecified harm, or the possibility of harm, to plaintiff’s person and/or property. A first amended complaint was filed on 6/18/2024 and after the Court

24CV005025: BOE vs DEACON CORP. 08/28/2025 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 53

granted plaintiff’s motion to amend, a second amended complaint was filed on 11/12/2024.

On 12/19/2024, plaintiff filed his “omnibus motion” by which he first appears to seek an order permitting him to proceed under a pseudonym in order to “protect against potential danger arising frome [sic] public disclosure of their [sic] true natural identity” since “Litigant reasonably believes that if their true name were to be made public, it would and could expose them to such significant personal safety risks that would create mental harm due to a recent report of potential hostility frome [sic] individuals with past grievances.” (12/19/2024 Mov.

Papers, p.4:1-9.) The moving papers also include a request to “streamline the judicial process by consolidating five counts into one complaint,” as “[t]hese counts--ranging frome [sic] negligence to intentional infliction of emotional distress--arise frome [sic] vibration-induced damage allegedly caused by the [sic] Deacon’s reckless behaviour [sic].” (Id., at p.6:7-10.) According to plaintiff, “[a]ddressing all claims simultaneously will minimise [sic] judicial inefficiency and prevent multiplicity of suits, aligning with the honourable [sic] Court’s paramount rule which is the duty to promote and administer justice.” (Id., at p.6:11-14.)

Defendant filed an opposition, arguing that plaintiff has failed to provide an adequate justification for refusing to disclose his name and his vague suggestions about threats of physical violence and past grievances do not appear to relate to this litigation.

On 4/30/2025, this Court issued Ruling on Submitted Matter (“ROSM”) which denied plaintiff’s “omnibus motion” in its entirety. The ROSM explained that plaintiff had “failed to provide sufficient factual and legal justification for this Court to permit him to prosecute this action under a pseudonym” and that the use of a fictitious name could potentially and unnecessarily impair defendant’s constitutional rights to due process by being limited in its ability to fully investigate the claims presented in this litigation and to prepare a full and complete defense thereto.

Similarly, plaintiff’s request to “streamline the judicial process” was denied since the moving papers do not clearly describe the precise nature of the relief sought and California law does not recognize any generalized motion seeking an order which “streamline[s] the judicial process.” Finally, to the extent plaintiff was attempting to obtain leave to amend his complaint, the motion was denied due to procedural defects but confirmed plaintiff had the right to file a codecomplaint motion to amend.

Moving Papers. Plaintiff filed on 5/1/2025 the present motion for reconsideration of the aforementioned “omnibus motion.” Among the documents filed in support on 5/1/2025 and several subsequent dates are the following:

“Holy Letter of Repentance” on 5/1/2025; “Notice of Stay Pending Reconsideration” on 5/5/2025;

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005025: BOE vs DEACON CORP. 08/28/2025 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 53

“Notice and Response to Objection to Invoking Chancery” on 5/9/2025; “Declaration ISO Request for Reconsideration with Notice of Conveyance” on 5/12/2025; “Equitable Judicial Notice” on 5/19/2025; “Equitable Objection with Judicial Notice coupled with Lawful and Formal Rebuke” on 5/23/2025; “Equitable Judicial Notice” on 7/23/2025; and “Legal and Equitable Basis for Entry of Default With Prejudice” on 7/28/2025.

Opposition. Defendant opposes, advancing a number of arguments why this motion for reconsideration should be denied.

Legal Standard for Reconsideration

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc. §1008(a).)

“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 [underline added for emphasis]; 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 213-214.) “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 other grounds in Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82) [plaintiff's belief that certain evidence was not necessary at hearing on summary judgment 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005025: BOE vs DEACON CORP. 08/28/2025 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 53

requirement of diligence.” (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690.) The court in Garcia held that “section 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 Garcia Court further found that “[t]he information consisting of Garcia’s own 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.)

Discussion

This Court finds that plaintiff has here failed to demonstrate the existence of any new or different facts, circumstances, or law which justify reconsideration of the earlier order denying the “omnibus motion” pursuant to the express language of Code of Civil Procedure §1008(a). Indeed, the multiple papers filed in support of this motion do not appear to identify, much less discuss in any meaningful manner, any new or different fact, circumstance or law. Instead, at best, the present motion merely seeks to have the Court reconsider the same facts, circumstances and law that were set forth in the earlier “omnibus motion” in hopes of obtaining a different result.

This, however, is not a valid basis on which to seek or obtain reconsideration given the specific constraints found in §1008(a). (See also, Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500 [suggestion that court misinterpreted or misapplied relevant law is not sufficient to obtain reconsideration].)

Additionally, even if he had properly and adequately established the existence of some new or different fact, circumstance or law that supports reconsideration (which again, plaintiff has not done), plaintiff’s motion would still be denied as he has failed to provide any reasonable excuse for failing to provide it to the Court at or before the hearing of the earlier “omnibus motion” on 4/29/2025. Plaintiff has likewise failed to persuade the Court that he actually exercised reasonable diligence and show that despite such diligence, he was unable to provide the new or different facts, circumstances or law at or before the 4/29/2025 hearing on the earlier “omnibus motion.”

In the end, this Court holds that plaintiff has not only failed to establish any “new or different facts, circumstances, or law” which sufficient to support a motion for reconsideration but also failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for not present any purported new fact, circumstance or law earlier. A court “acts in excess of jurisdiction

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005025: BOE vs DEACON CORP. 08/28/2025 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 53

when it grants a motion to reconsider that is not based upon ‘new or different facts, circumstances, or law.’” (Gilberd, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at 1500.)

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the order denying his earlier “omnibus motion” is DENIED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)