On 04/27/2018 ERICKA ORTIZ filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against ELMCREST CARE CENTER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GEORGINA T. RIZK and PETER A. HERNANDEZ. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Pomona Courthouse South
Los Angeles, California
GEORGINA T. RIZK
PETER A. HERNANDEZ
ORTIZ ERICA INDIVIDUAL AND ADMINISTRATO
ORTIZ ERICA INDIVIDUAL AND ADMINISTRATOR
DOES 1-50 INCLUSIVE
ELMCREST CARE CENTER
LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH M. KAR PC
LARIAN LAW FIRM
FIRM LARIAN LAW
LARIAN ALEXANDER M.
KAR JOSEPH MICHAEL
CROSS LISA A.
CROSS LISA ANNE
5/12/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order
1/10/2020: Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default
1/29/2020: Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO RECONSIDER OR FOR RELIEF ALTERNATIVELY ETC
2/4/2020: Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING OF LODGING HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF 2/4/2019
8/29/2019: Appeal - Remittitur - Appeal Dismissed - APPEAL - REMITTITUR - APPEAL DISMISSED B297295
5/16/2019: Appeal - Notice of Default Issued - NOTICE OF DEFAULT
1/22/2019: Opposition - Opposition Opposition to Joinder to Motion to Compel Arbitration; Memorandum of Points and Authorities
9/7/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
9/24/2018: REPLY OF DEFENDANT ELMCREST CARE CENTER TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT?S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF SAMER ARAFAT
10/17/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice -
10/22/2018: Notice of Status Conference and Order
10/1/2018: Legacy Document -
10/9/2018: Notice - Re: Reassignment
9/13/2018: SUMMONS ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
9/17/2018: OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, ETC
9/18/2018: NOTICE OF ERRATA
4/17/2018: ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR:1) ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT (WELFARE & INSTITUTIONS CODE SEC. 15600 ET SEQ.); ETC
4/20/2018: SUMMONS -
Hearing12/01/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department O at 400 Civic Center Plaza, Pomona, CA 91766; Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 09:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Status Conference (ReArbitration) - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Status Conference Re: Arbitration)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Status Conference (ReArbitration) - Not Held - Continued - Court's MotionRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CCP 473.5) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Order Compelling Arbitr...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder (on the Court's Tentative Ruling); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by Ortiz, Erica, Individual and administrator (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Lodging (of lodging hearing transcript of 2/4/2019); Filed by Ortiz, Erica, Individual and administrator (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONS ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
DocketFirst Amended Complaint; Filed by Ortiz, Erica, Individual and administrator (Plaintiff); Delores Ortiz (Plaintiff); Gariela Ortiz (Plaintiff) et al.Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Ortiz, Erica, Individual and administrator (Plaintiff); Delores Ortiz (Plaintiff); Gariela Ortiz (Plaintiff) et al.Read MoreRead Less
DocketFIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
DocketMotion to Compel; Filed by Elmcrest Care Center (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT ELMCREST CARE CENTER FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFFS TO ARBITRATE THE CONTROVERSY AND STAYING THE SUPERIOR COURT ACTION; ETCRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Ortiz, Erica, Individual and administrator (Plaintiff); Delores Ortiz (Plaintiff); Gariela Ortiz (Plaintiff) et al.Read MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR:1) ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT (WELFARE & INSTITUTIONS CODE SEC. 15600 ET SEQ.); ETCRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC702695 Hearing Date: February 06, 2020 Dept: O
Plaintiffs Ericka Ortiz, Dolores Ortiz, Gabriela Ortiz, Jesse Ortiz, and Aracely Ortiz’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
Plaintiffs Ericka Ortiz, Dolores Ortiz, Gabriela Ortiz, Jesse Ortiz, and Aracely Ortiz (“Plaintiffs”) move for reconsideration of the court’s ruling on February 8, 2019 compelling arbitration as to plaintiff Ericka Ortiz, the personal representative and administrator for the Estate of Jose de Jesus Ortiz, and staying all proceedings as to the remaining non-signatory plaintiffs pending arbitration.
“A court may reconsider its order granting or denying a motion and may even reconsider or alter its judgment so long as judgment has not yet been entered. Once judgment has been entered, however, the court may not reconsider it and loses its unrestricted power to change the judgment.” (Passavanti v. Williams (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1602, 1606.)
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. (CCP § 1008.) The legislative intent was to restrict these motions to circumstances where a party offers the court some fact or circumstance not previously considered, and some valid reason for not offering it early. (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.) The burden is comparable to that of a party seeking a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, i.e. the information must be such that the Moving party could not with reasonable diligence have discovered or produced it at trial. (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (Wall Street Network, Ltd.) (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212-213.)
As a preliminary procedural matter, the motion should have been made within 10 days after service upon the party of notice of entry of the order. (CCP § 1008, subd. (a).) The Court had entered its order on February 8, 2019. Thus, this motion--filed almost a whole year later on January 10, 2020--is untimely.
Furthermore, Plaintiffs have not raised any new facts that could not with reasonable diligence have been raised at the previous hearing.Plaintiffs argue that Jose de Jesus Ortiz’s estate cannot afford to pay for the arbitration. Plaintiffs had the opportunity to raise this issue at the original hearing on this issue and do not explain why they failed to raise this argument at the previous hearing. Further, the Court notes that Plaintiffs excluded the issue of substantive unconscionability the first time it brought the issue to the Court’s attention and, yet, the Court found the pay provision “fair and reasonable.” (February 8, 2019 Order at 6:6-17.) Plaintiffs now assert as part of this motion that the decedent, Jose de Jesus Ortiz, was on government disability and insurance at the time he was admitted to Defendants’ facility. (Ortiz Decl., ¶ 7.) Thus, the Court is hard-pressed to find that this is a new fact or circumstance to Plaintiffs.
Accordingly, motion is DENIED.