Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/21/2019 at 03:03:56 (UTC).

REBECCA A. RICKLEY, ET AL., VS BENJAMIN NAHAMIA, ET AL.,

Case Summary

On 10/30/2017 REBECCA A RICKLEY, filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against BENJAMIN NAHAMIA, . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GERALD ROSENBERG and MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8286

  • Filing Date:

    10/30/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

GERALD ROSENBERG

MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

RICKLEY REBECCA A.

ROIT NATASHA

Defendants

COHAN JACOB

NAHAMIA JACOB

COHEN PETER

NAHAMIA BENJAMIN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

ROIT NATASHA LAW OFFICES OF

ROIT NATASHA

Defendant Attorneys

TURNER AUBERT & FRIEDMAN

BOOTH LLP

JONES MICHAEL NICHOLAS

MORRIS STEVEN ALBERT

 

Court Documents

Complaint

10/30/2017: Complaint

Summons

10/30/2017: Summons

Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (C.C.P., ? 170.6)

11/13/2017: Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (C.C.P., ? 170.6)

Unknown

12/26/2017: Unknown

Unknown

2/5/2018: Unknown

Unknown

3/23/2018: Unknown

Unknown

6/7/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

8/7/2018: Minute Order

Request for Judicial Notice

12/21/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

3/12/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Stipulation

4/2/2019: Stipulation

Ex Parte Application

4/2/2019: Ex Parte Application

Notice

4/2/2019: Notice

Request for Judicial Notice

4/9/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Objection

4/18/2019: Objection

Reply

4/18/2019: Reply

Notice

4/23/2019: Notice

Ex Parte Application

5/17/2019: Ex Parte Application

54 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/20/2019
  • at 10:05 AM in Department M; Ex-Parte Proceedings

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (For Continuance of Trial Date)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by PETER COHEN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Defendant's Ex-Parte Application for continuance of trial date;)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • Order (Proposed Order re Verizon Subpoenas); Filed by REBECCA A. RICKLEY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (Defendant Peter Cohen's Ex-Parte Application to Continue Trial Date; Declaration of Jason M. Booth); Filed by PETER COHEN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • Notice (of Withdrawal of Motion to Quash Subpoena to Verizon); Filed by BENJAMIN NAHAMIA (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • Notice (Notice of Ruling Denying Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by REBECCA A. RICKLEY (Plaintiff); NATASHA ROIT (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
89 More Docket Entries
  • 11/13/2017
  • at 08:30 AM in Department K; Unknown Event Type - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2017
  • at 08:30 am in Department WEK, Gerald Rosenberg, Presiding; Affidavit of Prejudice - Completed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2017
  • Minute order entered: 2017-11-13 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2017
  • Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by REBECCA A. RICKLEY (Plaintiff); NATASHA ROIT (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2017
  • CCP 170.6 Application Filed ( AGAINST - JUDGE ROSENBERG); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2017
  • Summons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2017
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2017
  • Summons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2017
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by REBECCA A. RICKLEY (Plaintiff); NATASHA ROIT (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC128286    Hearing Date: November 05, 2020    Dept: M

CASE NAME: Rebecca A. Rickley. et al. v. Benjamin Nahamia, et al.

CASE NO.: SC128286

MOTION: Motion for Reconsideration

HEARING DATE: 11/5/2020

Background

The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel Mr. Morris’ deposition on February 25, 2020. On February 27, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion for summary judgment. No affidavit was submitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(h) in support of Plaintiff’s request to conduct further discovery before the hearing. On March 12, 2020, the Court held the hearing on the motion for summary judgment and granted the motion.

Plaintiffs Rebecca A. Rickley and Natasha Roit move for reconsideration of the order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants Jacob Nahamia, Jacob Cohan, and Peter Cohen.

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

The facts that Plaintiffs rely on are that the Court granted the motion to compel the deposition of Mr. Morris. This is not a “new” fact for the purposes of a motion for reconsideration since Plaintiffs were aware of this fact at the time they submitted their opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have failed to present new facts, circumstances, or law requiring reconsideration of the order granting summary judgment. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.