Motion for Reconsideration
The Court GRANTS, the motion for reconsideration, in part. The Court’s February 5, 2026, Order is modified to be “without prejudice.”
A motion for reconsideration made by a party must be based on new or different facts, circumstances, or law than those before the court at the time of the original ruling. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a).) The motion must also be accompanied by an affidavit from the moving party that states: (1) what application was previously made; (2) when and to what judge; (3) what order was made; and (4) what new or different facts, circumstances or law are claimed to be shown. (Ibid.)
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.) A party seeking reconsideration of a prior order based on “new or different facts, circumstances or law” must provide a satisfactory explanation for failing to present the information at the first hearing; i.e., a showing of reasonable diligence. (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 674, 690.) Reconsideration cannot be granted based on claims the court misinterpreted the law in its initial ruling. (Gilberd v. AC Transit, supra, 32 Cal. App. 4th at 1500.)
Apart from a parties’ motion, if the court itself “determines that there has been a change of law that warrants it to reconsider a prior order it entered, it may do so on its own motion and enter a different order.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(c).) The court has the inherent power to reconsider its rulings it believes to be in error. (Le Francios v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal. 4th 1094, 1108
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Here, first, Plaintiffs request that the Court modify the Court’s February 5, 2026, Order granting the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants, Carriage Investments, Inc.; Kirdida Narsai; and Kishor Narsai (collectively, “Defendants”) to reflect that any dismissal is “without prejudice,” as mandated by Code of Civil Procedure section 581(b)(4) and (g). Although Plaintiffs did not cite to Code of Civil Procedure section 581, let alone Section 581(b)(4) or 581(g) previously, and do not explain the failure to do so, the Court exercises its discretion to consider this section and modify the February 5, 2026 Order based on its inherent power to reconsider its rulings.
Code of Civil Procedure section 581(b)(4) provides that an action may be dismissed “[b]y the court, without prejudice, when dismissal is made pursuant to the applicable provisions of Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 583.110).” Code of Civil Procedure section 581(g) provides, “[t]he court may dismiss without prejudice the complaint in whole, or as to that defendant, when dismissal is made under the applicable provisions of Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 581.110).” Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted under the mandatory provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 583.250 for failure to file proofs of service of summons within three years and sixty days of the filing of the Complaint as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 583.210.
These sections fall within the provisions of Chapter 1.5. Therefore, the Court modifies its February 5, 2026, Order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss to be “without prejudice.”
As to Plaintiffs’ secondary alternative argument that the Court should reconsider and vacate the dismissal, Plaintiffs present no new or different facts, circumstances, or law and essentially argue that the Court misinterpreted Brookview Condominium Owners’ Assn. v. Heltzer Enterprises-Brookview (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 502. Plaintiffs do not present a basis for reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 to vacate the dismissal.