STEINER vs TURNER, et al.

24CV011758: STEINER vs TURNER, et al. 06/24/2025 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration of February 6, 2025 Order in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff in pro per Tara Steiner’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order dated February 6, 2025 is DENIED.

Defendants Brian H. Turner and the Law Office of Brian H. Turner, PC’s (collectively, “Defendants”) filed an untimely opposition on June 12, 2025, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1005. The Court declines to consider the untimely opposition.

This is a legal malpractice action arising from Defendants’ representation of Plaintiff in Tara Steiner v. United States of America, et al., case 2:20-cv-01580-JAM-CKD.

On February 5, 2025, this Court issued its tentative rulings sustaining with leave to amend Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint and dropping as moot Defendants’ motion to strike. Oral argument was not requested by either party and the tentative rulings were affirmed on February 6, 2025. Defendants sent Plaintiff notice of entry of the orders by mail and e-mail on February 7, 2025. The order on the demurrer stated Plaintiff may file and serve a First Amended Complaint on or before February 20, 2025. The Court’s records do not reflect that Plaintiff has filed a First Amended Complaint, although Defendants filed an Answer to the Complaint on February 21, 2025.

On February 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed this instant motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff contends the Court should reconsider its order dated February 6, 2025 because therein the Court granted Defendants’ counsel’s request for judicial notice of Plaintiff’s Complaint and Declaration of Richard A. Sullivan for 30-Day Extension as unopposed, even though Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ Request for a 30-Day Extension of time on September 23, 2024.

There are strict requirements for a motion for reconsideration. Foremost is that the motion for reconsideration must be heard by the same judge who issued the order sought to be reconsidered. (Code Civ. Proc. §1008(a)). Second, the motion for reconsideration must be filed within 10 days after service of the order denying the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a).) Third, the motion for reconsideration must be supported by “new or different facts, circumstances or law.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(b).)

The party seeking reconsideration must base its motion “upon newly discovered facts, circumstances, or law.” (The New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 208.) The moving party must also provide “a satisfactory explanation for the failure to make the showing at or before the time the challenged order was issued.” (Id. (emphasis added)) “The information must be such that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced it.” (Id. at 213.)

The legislative intent was to restrict motions for reconsideration to circumstances where a

24CV011758: STEINER vs TURNER, et al. 06/24/2025 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration of February 6, 2025 Order in Department 54

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.) The moving party must “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)).

Plaintiff has satisfied the first element because Judge Krueger issued the Order sought to be reconsidered.

As to the second element, Plaintiff contends the motion is timely because she was served with the notice of entry of order by email on February 7, 2025, and pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(b), service by electronic means extended the response period by two court days to February 19, 2025, and she filed her motion on February 18, 2025. This is incorrect because the orders plainly state that they were effective “immediately” rather than after service of notice of order. Thus, the motion for reconsideration is untimely.

However, even assuming Plaintiff’s motion was timely, it would still need to be denied because Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the third element. Plaintiff has not presented any affidavit in support of this motion, nor has she provided any newly discovered facts or circumstances that could not have been presented at or before the time the challenged order was issued. Indeed, Plaintiff identified in her opposition to the demurrer and motion to strike that on September 23, 2024, she filed an opposition to Defendants’ declaration regarding the 30-day extension of time (the opposition is titled “Declaration of Tara Steiner”), making her opposition to the declaration not a new fact.

Further, granting Defendants’ request for judicial notice of the declaration regarding the 30-day extension of time only means that the Court accepted the fact of its existence, not the truth of its contents. As a result, taking judicial notice of the declaration had little to no meaningful effect on the Court’s determination on the merits of the demurrer.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice filed in support of her reply is granted. In taking judicial notice of these documents, the Court accepts the fact of their existence, not the truth of their contents. (See Professional Engineers v. Dep’t of Transp. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 543, 590 [judicial notice of findings of fact does not mean that those findings of fact are true]; Steed v. Department of Consumer Affairs (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 112, 120-121 [“[W]hile the existence of any document in a court file may be judicially noticed, the truth of the matters asserted in those documents, including the factual findings of the judge who was sitting as the trier of fact, is not entitled to notice.”].)

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011758: STEINER vs TURNER, et al. 06/24/2025 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration of February 6, 2025 Order in Department 54

of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.