| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
PETITIONER’S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: MAY 13, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
TENTATIVE RULINGS ARE NOT POSTED IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASES
Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing with two exceptions: (1) in unopposed matters where the moving party has provided a detailed proposed order or JCC form of order, or (2) where the tentative is simply to “grant”. Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.
No. 25CV01147
ANDERSON et al. v. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PURSUANT TO CRC 3.700(a)
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBIT FILED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DISMISSAL
The motions are continued to June 10, 2026. Plaintiffs are directed to file a copy of the signed settlement agreement for the Court’s review 10 days before the hearing date. The Court only received a copy of the settlement allocation plan.
Nos. 25CV01912, 25CV01913
WARMACK v. CAL. VICTIM’S COMPENSATION BOARD
PETITIONER’S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
The motions are denied.
Self-represented petitioner Dedrick Deon Warmack, Sr. brought a writ of mandate to compel the California Victim Compensation Board (“Board”) to reverse its decisions denying his applications for victim compensation for injuries sustained as a result of a documented domestic violence incident.
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: MAY 13, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
Petitioner alleged that he was the victim of a DV incident on September 2, 2017 when he was kicked in the face approximately 25 times by his former romantic partner and her son. Petitioner alleged he was attempting to carry out a lawful emergency custody order at the time of the assault. Despite proof of the incident, the Board denied his application. Petitioner contended the Board improperly relied on an unrelated and irrelevant arrest record. He alleged he lost custody of his daughter, was falsely labeled as the defendant and substance abuser by Alameda Family Court, and had significant injuries requiring surgeries which prompted him to lose his job.
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?”
Petitioner’s applications to the Board were initially denied due to insufficient evidence. Petitioner then timely appealed and a hearing officer again denied his application due to insufficient evidence – his employer contradicted his claim of lost work/wages and his disability periods were prior to and then significantly after the incident date. The hearing officer also determined that the dental bills he sought reimbursement for were related to an ongoing dental health care issue, not the incident. The Board conducted a review of the evidence and denied his application on June 18, 2020, providing notice of that decision on June 22, 2020.
This Court ruled petitioner’s writ was time-barred and sustained respondent’s demurrers without leave to amend on December 23, 2025. Petitioner sought to vacate the resulting dismissals, but this Court denied those motions as well. Petitioner then filed these motions for reconsideration.
Although petitioner is self-represented, such a party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Williams v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 941, 944.)
The Court denies the motions on the ground that it no longer has jurisdiction to hear them, based upon the judgments entered on February 6, 2026. The court has no jurisdiction to reconsider under section 1008 since that section only applies to “interim orders.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (h).) “Once the trial court has entered judgment, it is without power to grant reconsideration.” (APRI Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 176, 182; accord Betz v. Pankow (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 931, 937; Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 859; Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 187, 192.)
Even if the Court had jurisdiction to reconsider its orders, it would not do so. A motion for reconsideration must be “based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a).) The moving party “shall state by affidavit... what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” (Ibid.) The moving party must also show diligence and explain why he or she could not have presented the new or different facts or law earlier. (California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. Virga (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 30, 46;
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: MAY 13, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
Baldwin v. Home Sav. of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200.) Plaintiff’s seven-page motion presents no new facts, circumstances, or law, or any affidavit of such.