DEAL VS DEAL

different facts, law or circumstances and that such new or different matter could not, in the exercise of reasonable diligence have been obtained prior to the order or judgment for which reconsideration is being sought. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1008(a); Cradduck v. Hilton Domestic Operating Co., Inc. (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 284, 304; Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial (TRG 2026) Ch. 9(I)-E, Sec. 9:329.)

Here, the allegedly new evidence consists of Petitioner's alleged attainment post-hearing of the minor child's subjective concerns and views as to, inter alia, the performance of minor's counsel's scope and advocacy. As Respondent's counsel's Objection asserts, this is neither technically "new" nor is the Court required to permit a minor to testify or interview a minor on a motion to have minor's counsel relieved. Rather, that decision is discretionary with the Court based on the best interests of the minor child and, in any event, the weight to be accorded such testimony--assuming Petitioner's allegations are accurate--are also matters for the Court's discretion.

All things considered, the Court finds nothing in the moving or reply papers that requires reconsideration under section 1008, nor is the Court inclined to entertain reconsideration on its motion. Ultimately, minor's counsel remains under the Court's control and supervision. As such, should the Court, or any party, be of the view that minor's counsel should be relieved or replaced, the matter may always be revisited.

/// FL-26-000652 - DEAL VS DEAL

Respondent's Request for Order re Property Control, etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED. An Appearance, Stipulation and Waiver was filed on June 8, 2026, along with a Stipulation and Waiver of Final Declaration of Disclosure. Accordingly, it appears Respondent's motion is moot and that an agreement has been reached. The parties are invited to appear and advise the Court as to the status of any agreements and whether the present order request is withdrawn or may be vacated as moot.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Maria Elena Ramos-Ratliff in Department #25: THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.