On 10/19/2012 VINCE FLAHERTY filed an Other lawsuit against U S BANK. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LISA HART COLE, NANCY L. NEWMAN, ALLAN J. GOODMAN, CESAR C. SARMIENTO, H. JAY FORD III and BOBBI TILLMON. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
LISA HART COLE
NANCY L. NEWMAN
ALLAN J. GOODMAN
CESAR C. SARMIENTO
H. JAY FORD III
BOBBI TILLMON
FLAHERTY VINCE
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING
BAILEY STEVE
BANK OF AMERICA INC.
COUNTRYWIDE
GATES MARSHALL
GISSINGER ANDREW
GREENWICH CAPITAL ACCEPTANCE INC.
J.P. MORGAN CHASE
JACKSON JONATHON
JAHNKE JOSHUA
KRIPALANI RANJIT
LANDSAFE TITLE
LASALLE BANK
MASON TIMOTHY P.
MCCALLION ANNE D.
MCCLAREN SUSAN
MERSCORP
MILLEMAN LAURA K.
NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES
VICTORY PATRICIA L.
LEVIN FREDERICK S.
CALDWELL LESLIE & PROCTOR
DRAPALSKI H. JOSEPH
NEUFELD & MARKS
PAUL HASTINGS JANOFSKY & WALKER
WRIGHT FINLAY & ZAK
ROPES & GRAY LLP
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
BUCKLEYSANDLER LLP
AKERMAN SENTERFITT
SENTERFITT AKERMAN
SORICH JOHN M.
PARKER IBRAHJIM & BERG LLC
KUTAK ROCK LLP
BELZER & MURRAY
8/17/2017: Unknown
8/28/2017: Unknown
8/30/2017: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore
8/30/2017: Minute Order
9/21/2017: Unknown
10/3/2017: Minute Order
10/20/2017: Unknown
1/4/2018: Unknown
3/26/2018: Notice of Ruling
3/26/2018: Notice of Ruling
4/4/2018: Unknown
4/20/2018: Unknown
6/8/2018: Minute Order
6/26/2018: Unknown
7/2/2018: Unknown
7/20/2018: Reply
7/26/2018: Notice of Ruling
2/1/2019: Minute Order
at 08:32 AM in Department O; Hearing on Motion - Other (name extension) (To Admit Video Surveillance Evidence) - Held
at 08:30 AM in Department O; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (name extension) (in support of peremptory challenge) - Held - Motion Granted
Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by VINCE FLAHERTY (Plaintiff)
Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by VINCE FLAHERTY (Plaintiff)
Notice of Ruling; Filed by Belzer & Murray LLP (Legacy Party)
Ex Parte Application (declaration of Vince Flaherty in support of peremptory challenge to judge or in the alternative a motion to recuse); Filed by VINCE FLAHERTY (Plaintiff)
Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore (By: Audrey Lehman); Filed by VINCE FLAHERTY (Plaintiff)
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion - Other To Admit Video Surveillance Evidenc...)); Filed by Clerk
at 08:30 AM in Department O; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (name extension) (to extend time to brief the court) - Held
Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application; Filed by VINCE FLAHERTY (Plaintiff)
Notice of Pendency
at 08:30 AM in Department P; (Case Ordered Reassigned; Case Reassigned for all purposes) -
at 08:30 am in Department WEP, Allan J. Goodman, Presiding; Case Ordered Reassigned - Case Reassigned for all purposes
Minute order entered: 2012-10-24 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk
Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Plaintiff
Request to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Plaintiff
Complaint; Filed by VINCE FLAHERTY (Plaintiff)
Request-Waive Court Fees; Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per
Complaint Filed
Order-Court Fee Waiver (AS TO PLFF VINCE FLAHERTY. ); Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per
Case Number: SC118787 Hearing Date: October 08, 2020 Dept: M
CASE NAME: Vince Flaherty v. U.S. BANK, et al.
CASE NO.: SC118787
MOTION: Motion for Reconsideration
HEARING DATE: 10/8/2020
Background
Plaintiff Vince Flaherty seeks reconsideration of an order vacating a prior order allowing video evidence to show that Plaintiff was not served in a separate unlawful detainer action, SC128569. Holly Hill Investments specially appeared to oppose this motion. Holly Hill commenced the SC128569 unlawful detainer action. The Honorable Judge Lisa Hart Cole entered judgment against Plaintiff Flaherty in the unlawful detainer action and Plaintiff was evicted on June 20, 2018.
Legal Standard
A court may reconsider a prior ruling if the party affected provides notice within 10 days of the order it seeks reconsideration of “new or different facts, circumstances, or law.” (Code Civ. Proc. §1008(a).) “[F]acts of which the party seeking reconsideration was aware at the time of the original ruling are not ‘new or different.’” (In re Marriage of Herr (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1468 [citing Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690].) “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).)
Analysis
Plaintiff has failed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(a) by failing to “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).). Therefore, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
Moreover, this matter was concluded in October 2016. The case is not active, and no further filings will be accepted and/or considered by the Court in this matter.