Motion to Reconsider
When an application for an order has been made to a judge or to the 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 on
the party of written notice of entry of the order and based on new or
different facts, circumstances, or law, apply to the same judge who made
the order, to reconsider the matter and to modify, amend, or revoke the
prior order [see Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a)[Deering's] ; for a form of notice
of motion, see § 374.62].
The applying party must state by affidavit (or declaration under Code Civ.
Proc. § 2015.5[Deering's] ) 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)[Deering's] ; for a form of
declaration, see § 374.61].
The facts asserted on the motion for reconsideration need not be
newly discovered; they need only be different from those asserted
on the original motion [ Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit,
Inc. (1990) 222 Cal. App. 3d 1371, 1386-1387 n.9, 272 Cal. Rptr. 387
(applying Section 1008(a) as enacted, Stats. 1978, ch. 631)]. To be entitled
to reconsideration, however, in addition to showing that evidence of new or
different facts exist, the applying party should show that the party has a
satisfactory explanation for failing to produce such evidence at the original
hearing [ McPherson v. City of Manhattan Beach (2000) 78 Cal. App. 4th
1252, 1265, 93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 725 ; Kalivas v. Barry Controls Corp. (1996)
49 Cal. App. 4th 1152, 1160-1161, 57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 200 ; see Pazderka v.
Caballeros Dimas Alang, Inc. (1998) 62 Cal. App. 4th 658, 670, 73 Cal.
Rptr. 2d 242 (must not only provide new evidence, but also satisfactory
explanation for failure to produce at earlier time); Lucus v. Santa Maria
Public Airport Dist. (1995) 39 Cal. App. 4th 1017, 1027-1028, 46 Cal. Rptr.
2d 177 (moving party must provide trial court with satisfactory explanation
why he or she failed to produce evidence at earlier time); accord, Mink v.
Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal. App. 4th 1338, 1342, 4 Cal. Rptr. 2d 195 ].
When an application for an order has been made to a judge or to the 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 on
the party of written notice of entry of the order and based on new or
different facts, circumstances, or law, apply to the same judge who made
the order, to reconsider the matter and to modify, amend, or revoke the
prior order [see Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a)[Deering's] ; for a form of notice
of motion, see § 374.62].
The applying party must state by affidavit (or declaration under Code Civ.
Proc. § 2015.5[Deering's] ) 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)[Deering's] ; for a form of
declaration, see § 374.61].
The facts asserted on the motion for reconsideration need not be
newly discovered; they need only be different from those asserted
on the original motion [ Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit,
Inc. (1990) 222 Cal. App. 3d 1371, 1386-1387 n.9, 272 Cal. Rptr. 387
(applying Section 1008(a) as enacted, Stats. 1978, ch. 631)]. To be entitled
to reconsideration, however, in addition to showing that evidence of new or
different facts exist, the applying party should show that the party has a
satisfactory explanation for failing to produce such evidence at the original
hearing [ McPherson v. City of Manhattan Beach (2000) 78 Cal. App. 4th
1252, 1265, 93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 725 ; Kalivas v. Barry Controls Corp. (1996)
49 Cal. App. 4th 1152, 1160-1161, 57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 200 ; see Pazderka v.
Caballeros Dimas Alang, Inc. (1998) 62 Cal. App. 4th 658, 670, 73 Cal.
Rptr. 2d 242 (must not only provide new evidence, but also satisfactory
explanation for failure to produce at earlier time); Lucus v. Santa Maria
Public Airport Dist. (1995) 39 Cal. App. 4th 1017, 1027-1028, 46 Cal. Rptr.
2d 177 (moving party must provide trial court with satisfactory explanation
why he or she failed to produce evidence at earlier time); accord, Mink v.
Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal. App. 4th 1338, 1342, 4 Cal. Rptr. 2d 195 ].
| San Diego Education Report |
| SDER |
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
| SDER |
| SDER |
| SDER |
Why This Website
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz v. Maura
Larkins defamation
SDCOE
CVESD
Castle Park
Elementary School
Law Enforcement
CTA
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz
Silence is Golden
Schools and Violence
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz v. Maura
Larkins defamation
SDCOE
CVESD
Castle Park
Elementary School
Law Enforcement
CTA
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz
Silence is Golden
Schools and Violence
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing