On 11/10/2016 PERLMAN LAW INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against DON HART. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ROBERT B. BROADBELT and EDWARD B. MORETON. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
Disposed - Judgment Entered
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
ROBERT B. BROADBELT
EDWARD B. MORETON
PERLMAN LAW INC
PERLMAN LAW INC
BRANDON DAVID M. ESQ.
BRANDON DAVID M.
PERLMAN DEBORAH KATE
4/16/2018: NOTICE OF HEARING ON CLAIM OF EXEMPTION (WAGE GARNISHMENT-ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT)
4/16/2018: NOTICE OF OPPOSITION TO CLAIM OF EXEMPTION (ENFORCEMENT OR JUDGRNONT)
5/8/2018: Minute Order
7/13/2018: SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ELDER PROTECTION NOTICE; REPORTING OF ELDER FINANCIA) EXPLOITATION AND ABUSE; ABUSE OF JUDICIAL PROCESS AND CONDUCT; ETC.
7/16/2018: SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING JUDICIAL NOTICE; REPORTING OF ELDER FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION AND ABUSE; ABUSE OF JUDICAI PROCESS AND CONDUCT; DECLARATION OF 78 YEAR OLD SARA HART MOTJON TO SET ASIDE OR VACATE DIS
7/27/2018: NOTICE OF COTINUED HEARING DATE RE: DEFENDANTS' CLAIM OF EXEMPTION
8/1/2018: Minute Order
8/6/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE - CIVIL
8/23/2018: EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR RECUSAL OF JUDGE AND FOR REASSIGNMENT OF THIS CASE TO A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND/OR CONSOLIDATE RELATED CASE
11/27/2018: Notice of Related Case
3/17/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
5/23/2017: 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
6/14/2017: Minute Order
Appeal - Notice Court Reporter to Prepare Appeal TranscriptRead MoreRead Less
at 09:30 AM in Department 44, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - OtherRead MoreRead Less
at 09:30 AM in Department 44, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO VOID ORDER ISSUED BY DEPARTMENT 2B AND DELARE DEPARTMENT 2B HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER POST-JUDGMENT MATTERS) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by PartyRead MoreRead Less
Notice (Notice and Request to take Motion to Void Order off Calendar.); Filed by Perlman Law, Inc (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Appeal - Notice Court Reporter to Prepare Appeal Transcript (;NOA 12/05/18;); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Appeal Document (Turn Down Letter re: Reporter's Transcript;); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103; Filed by Sara Hart (Appellant)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Default (NOA 12/5/18); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 09:30 AM in Department 44, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for ReconsiderationRead MoreRead Less
Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103; Filed by Sara Hart (Appellant)Read MoreRead Less
First Amended Complaint; Filed by Perlman Law, Inc (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
FIRST AMENDED SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by Perlman Law, Inc (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1) BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT 2) COMMON COUNT: ACCOUNT STATED 3) COMMON COUNT: OPEN BOOK ACCOUNT 4) COMMON COUNT: SERVICES PERFORMEDRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR: 1) BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT ;ETCRead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Perlman Law, Inc (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC640412 Hearing Date: June 30, 2020 Dept: 53
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles – Central District
perlman law, inc.
June 30, 2020
[Tentative] Order RE:
Defendants’ motion for reconsideration of order re: motion to set aside default and default judgment
MOVING PARTY: Defendants Guy Hart and Sara Hart
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Perlman Law, Inc.
Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order Re: Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment
The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.
On November 10, 2016, plaintiff Perlman Law, Inc. (“Perlman”) filed this action against defendants Guy Hart and Sara Hart (collectively, “Defendants”). The operative First Amended Complaint was filed on January 4, 2017. Defendant Guy Hart’s default was entered on April 26, 2017. Defendant Sara Hart’s default was entered on May 23, 2017. On October 18, 2018, the court entered default judgment against Guy Hart and Sara Hart.
On July 19, 2019, Defendants filed their Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment (“Motion to Set Aside”), contending that Defendants were not properly served with the Summons and First Amended Complaint. (Notice of Motion, filed July 19, 2019). On August 19, 2019, the court issued an order denying Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside (the “August 19, 2019 Order”).
Defendants now move the court to reconsider the August 19, 2019 Order. Perlman opposes the motion.
As an initial matter, the court notes that Defendants move for reconsideration of the August 19, 2019 Order without reference to any authority, and Perlman, in opposition to Defendants’ motion, construes Defendants’ motion as one made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (a). In reply, Defendants contend that they seek reconsideration of the August 19, 2019 Order pursuant to the court’s inherent authority to reconsider its own prior order independent of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (a). However, Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 is the exclusive authority governing motions to reconsider and renewals of previous motions based on applications for an order to the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (e) [“This section specifies the court’s jurisdiction with regard to applications for reconsideration of its orders and renewals of previous motions, and applies to all applications to reconsider any order of a judge or court, or for the renewal of a previous motion, whether the order deciding the previous matter or motion is interim or final. No application to reconsider any order or for the renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to this section.”].)
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.”].)
First, the court notes that a motion for reconsideration must be accompanied by an affidavit from the moving party stating what application was made before, when and to what judge the application was made, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. Failure to include such an affidavit is grounds for denial of a motion for reconsideration. (Branner v. Regents of University of California (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1048.) Here, the only declaration attached to the motion is the “Declaration of Defendants,” signed by Sara Hart, Guy Hart, and Leemor Lavy. The declaration does not set forth what application was made before, when and to what judge the application was made, what order or decisions were made, or what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. Therefore, Defendants’ motion for reconsideration is defective for failure to comply with the procedural requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008.
Second, even if the motion for reconsideration were not defective on procedural grounds, the court finds that Defendants have failed to demonstrate new or different facts, circumstances, or law to support reconsideration of the court’s August 19, 2019 order denying Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside. Defendants contend that the court should reconsider that order because newly discovered evidence shows that, on March 27, 2017, Defendants’ attorney, Armen Shaghzo (“Shaghzo”) sent an email to “the family of Defendants” assuring them that he had already filed an answer in this action. (Declaration of Defendants, filed September 3, 2019, p. 5, Exh. A, email from Armen Shaghzo to Zeev Lavy, dated March 27, 2017.) In their declaration, Defendants state that Shaghzo was “retained hired [sic] to handle this lawsuit brought against Sara Hart and Guy Hart by Deborah Perlman for allegedly unpaid bills,” that Defendants “trusted and believed [Shaghzo] when he said he was handling the Deborah Perlman lawsuit and he told all of us NOT to worry, everything was handled,” and that Defendants discovered Shaghzo’s March 27, 2017 email “in the preparation for litigation.” (Declaration of Defendants, filed September 3, 2019, p. 5 (emphasis in original).) The court finds that Defendants have not met their burden of showing that Shaghzo’s March 27, 2017 email to Zeev Lavy constitutes new or different facts, circumstances, or law to support their motion to reconsider the August 19, 2019 Order. Defendants have not shown that Defendants “could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced” Shaghzo’s email in support of their Motion to Set Aside, filed July 19, 2019 and heard by the court on August 16, 2019. (New York Times Co., supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at pp. 212-213.)
For the reasons set forth above, the court denies defendants Guy Hart and Sara Hart’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s August 19, 2019 order denying defendants’ Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment.
The court orders plaintiff Perlman Law, Inc. to give notice of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 30, 2020
Robert B. Broadbelt III
Judge of the Superior Court
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases