Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STUD08499    Hearing Date: March 18, 2021    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff Chong Bum Park (“Plaintiff”) filed this unlawful detainer action on August 30, 2019 against Defendants Keith Bae and James Bae (jointly, “Defendants”).

On December 18, 2019, the Court issued an order staying this unlawful detainer action pending the completion of the related case Bae v. Park (Case No. 19STCV35553). The Court further ordered Defendant to pay rent for December 2019 and January 2020 of $6,400 per month for a total of $12,800 to Plaintiff’s counsel on or before December 23, 2019. The parties were also ordered to meet and confer over the future amount of rent and were ordered to submit a proposed order by January 28, 2020.

On February 11, 2020, the Order to Show Cause Re: why the Court should not order the rent payments to be made to the Court pursuant to CCP 1170.5 came on for hearing. After oral argument, the Court made the following ruling:

1. Pursuant to CCP 1170.5, rent is to be paid to the Court’s account during the pendency of this action.

2. Payments to be made starting February.

3. Payments to be made in accordance with the lease.

4. Payments to be made by cashier’s check and a copy to be provided to the landlord.

5. No disbursement of funds will be made without an order from the Court.

Defendants were directed to prepare and submit an order for signature. On February 11, 2020, Defendants submitted a proposed order. A Notice of Settlement was filed on March 2, 2020. The Court then set an Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal after Settlement for April 24, 2020, which was eventually continued to June 23, 2020. On June 23, 2020, the parties represented to the Court that there was no longer an agreement to settle, and the Order to Show Cause was discharged. On the same day, the Court signed and entered the proposed order submitted by Defendants (the “June 23, 2020 Order”). However, the file stamp on the June 23, 2020 Order shows that it was filed on February 18, 2020. The Court noted in the June 23, 2020 Order that Plaintiff was to give notice of the order.

Defendants now move for reconsideration of the Court’s June 23, 2020 Order. Plaintiff opposes.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (a) provides:

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.

The legislative intent was to restrict motions for reconsideration to circumstances where a party offers the court some fact or circumstance not previously considered, and some valid reason for not offering it earlier. ((Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500); (Mink v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1342 [“[T]he party seeking reconsideration must provide not only new evidence but also a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce that evidence at an earlier time.”]); (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212-213 [“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.”].)

Reconsideration cannot be granted based on claims the court misinterpreted the law in its initial ruling; that is not a “new” or “different” matter. ((Gilberd v. AC Transit, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 1500.) Moreover, counsel's mistake based on ignorance of the law is not a proper basis for reconsideration. ((Pazderka v. Caballeros Dimas Alang, Inc. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 658, 670.)

Discussion

As an initial procedural matter, Defendants contend that the instant motion for reconsideration[1] is timely because notice of the June 23, 2020 Order was never served on counsel for Defendants, Alejandro Herrera. (Herrera Decl., ¶ 2.) The Court notes that the minute order on June 23, 2020 shows that appearances were made by counsel for Plaintiff and by Defendant Keith Bae in pro per. Substitutions of attorney were filed on May 19, 2020 showing that both Defendants Keith Bae and James Bae were representing themselves. In any event, the Court also notes that on June 24, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email to Mr. Herrera indicating that a Notice of Court’s Ruling was attached. (Herrera Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A.) The Notice of Court’s Ruling states, among other things, that “[t]he Court will review and will sign its earlier Order that Plaintiffs are to pay, for the period of February 2020 onwards for the pendency of this litigation, the rents for their Premises into Court; this Order was not previously signed as the parties had filed a notice of settlement of case, which notice of settlement has since been retracted.” (Herrera Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Additionally, the Notice of Court’s Ruling also stated that “Counsel for Defendants is to give notice of the Court’s rulings to Plaintiffs’ new attorney Alex Herrera.” (Herrera Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A.) The Court finds that the Notice of Court’s Ruling gave sufficient notice to Mr. Herrera (and thereby, Defendants) of the June 23, 2020 Order. That a copy of the actual order was not attached is immaterial when the Notice of Court’s Ruling provides a description of the order and its effect. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5, subd. (a) [“When a motion is granted or denied, unless the court otherwise orders, notice of the court’s decision or order shall be given by the prevailing party to all other parties or their attorneys, in the manner provided in this chapter, unless notice is waived by all parties in open court and is entered in the minutes.”].) Defendants contend that there was confusion because file stamp on the June 23, 2020 Order is dated February 18, 2020. But any questions concerning the actual date of the order could easily have been clarified with either Plaintiff’s counsel or the staff in Department 50.

Even assuming for the sake of argument that Defendants’ reconsideration motion is timely, the fact that Mr. Herrera was not served with a copy of the June 23, 2020 Order is not a new or different fact, circumstance, or law that would entitle Plaintiff to reconsideration of the June 23, 2020 Order. The only relevant new or different facts or circumstances are those facts or circumstances that would have had an effect on the substance of the order, and whether or not notice of the order was properly served would have had no effect on the substance of the order.

Defendants also argue that the June 23, 2020 Order was made without consideration of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Defendants contend that this is a new or different fact or circumstance that should have been considered in June 2020. Defendants contend that the pandemic affected Defendants’ ability to pay rent because they were unable to run their restaurant business due to government shutdown orders in March 2020. (Bae Decl., ¶ 2.) But Defendants offer no evidence as to how this was a new circumstance that they were unable to bring to the Court’s attention prior to the issuance of the June 2020 Order. Therefore, the Court finds that even if the motion were timely, Defendants have not met their burden of showing that reconsideration of the June 23, 2020 Order is warranted.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion for reconsideration is denied.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this Order.

DATED: March 18, 2021

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

Case Number: 19STUD08499    Hearing Date: February 04, 2021    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff Chong Bum Park (“Plaintiff”) filed this unlawful detainer action on August 30, 2019 against Defendants Keith Bae and James Bae (jointly, “Defendants”).

On December 18, 2019, the Court issued an order staying this unlawful detainer action pending the completion of the related case Bae v. Park (Case No. 19STCV35553). The Court further ordered Defendant to pay rent for December 2019 and January 2020 of $6400 per month for a total of $12,8000 to Plaintiff’s counsel on or before December 23, 2019. The parties were also ordered to meet and confer over the future amount of rent and were ordered to submit a proposed order by January 28, 2020.

Plaintiff now moves for an order to enforce the December 18, 2019 Order. Defendants oppose.

Request for Judicial Notice

The Court denies Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice in its entirety. The Court notes that with respect to Exhibit 4, which is a copy of the December 18, 2019 minute order issued in 19STCV35553, the Court is denying the request for judicial notice on the ground that it is irrelevant, as the December 18, 2019 minute order in the instant case (as well as the handwritten order issued on December 18, 2019 in the instant case) is the operative order.

Discussion

Plaintiff contends that the December 18, 2019 Order required Defendants to continue to make all rental payments while the unlawful detainer case was stayed. But as noted by Defendants, the order cited by Plaintiff was with regard to the rental payments for December 2019 and January 2020. Plaintiff acknowledges that the rent for December 2019 and January 2020 have been paid. Therefore, the Court finds that Defendants are not in violation of the December 18, 2019 Order. The Court notes that there was a subsequent order by the Court filed on February 18, 2020 that required Defendants to pay the rent to the Court’s account during the pendency of this action, not directly to Plaintiff. Those payments were to start in February 2020.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

Defendants are ordered to provide notice of this ruling.

DATED: February 4, 2021 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court