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.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF
RICKLEY REBECCA A.
ROIT NATASHA LAW OFFICES OF
TURNER AUBERT & FRIEDMAN
JONES MICHAEL NICHOLAS
MORRIS STEVEN ALBERT
11/13/2017: Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (C.C.P., ? 170.6)
8/7/2018: Minute Order
12/21/2018: Request for Judicial Notice
3/12/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information
4/2/2019: Ex Parte Application
4/9/2019: Request for Judicial Notice
5/17/2019: Ex Parte Application
at 10:05 AM in Department M; Ex-Parte ProceedingsRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (For Continuance of Trial Date)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Ruling; Filed by PETER COHEN (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Defendant's Ex-Parte Application for continuance of trial date;)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Order (Proposed Order re Verizon Subpoenas); Filed by REBECCA A. RICKLEY (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
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
Notice (of Withdrawal of Motion to Quash Subpoena to Verizon); Filed by BENJAMIN NAHAMIA (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Held - Motion DeniedRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice (Notice of Ruling Denying Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by REBECCA A. RICKLEY (Plaintiff); NATASHA ROIT (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department K; Unknown Event Type - HeldRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 am in Department WEK, Gerald Rosenberg, Presiding; Affidavit of Prejudice - CompletedRead MoreRead Less
Minute order entered: 2017-11-13 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by REBECCA A. RICKLEY (Plaintiff); NATASHA ROIT (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
CCP 170.6 Application Filed ( AGAINST - JUDGE ROSENBERG); Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Civil Case Cover SheetRead MoreRead Less
Summons Filed; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Complaint FiledRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by REBECCA A. RICKLEY (Plaintiff); NATASHA ROIT (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
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
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.
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).)
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.