Accepted Answer

Hi. You say those facts were "previously ignored." If they were considered in the motion and dismissed in making the ruling then they are not new facts. If not, then they should be considered new facts. Here is a list of case decisions as they interpreted the definition of "new facts" under CCP 1008(b). This should give you the direction you are looking for and the laaw to support it. Good luck!

New or different facts

Employee who was deemed a vexatious litigant, and whose wrongful termination case was dismissed based on her failure to obtain new counsel after her previous counsel withdrew, failed to show new facts or circumstances in support of her motion for reconsideration of dismissal of the case; although employee hired substitute counsel after the dismissal, such postdismissal compliance with trial court's order was not the type of new fact that would support reconsideration. Forrest v. State Of California Dept. Of Corporations (App. 2 Dist. 2007) 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 466, 150 Cal.App.4th 183. Pretrial Procedure

	View Full Image

696.1

Joint venture film production company failed to support motion for reconsideration of trial court's order vacating arbitration award in favor of company in employment dispute with former president with new evidence or law required by statute in support of such motion; company relied upon Ninth Circuit federal law which had reiterated earlier decisions, and purported new evidence was known to company prior to vacating of award. Ovitz v. Schulman (App. 2 Dist. 2005) 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 117, 133 Cal.App.4th 830. Alternative Dispute Resolution

	View Full Image

363(8)

New circumstances arose to support reconsideration of trial court's denial of personal injury plaintiff's motion to set aside a dismissal with prejudice of defendant subcontractor; while trial court granted subcontractor an opportunity to respond to declaration in support of motion, subcontractor filed 75-page response that included a complete new set of points and authorities, a new declaration which exceeded scope of supporting declaration and raised new issues, and 12 new exhibits. Kollander Const., Inc. v. Superior Court (App. 2 Dist. 2002) 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 614, 98 Cal.App.4th 304. Motions

	View Full Image

39

To merit reconsideration, a party must provide a satisfactory reason why it was unable to present its "new" evidence at the original hearing. McPherson v. City of Manhattan Beach (App. 2 Dist. 2000) 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 725, 78 Cal.App.4th 1252, modified on denial of rehearing. Motions

	View Full Image

39

Newly produced documents establishing the relationship between a patient's medical benefit plan and the patient's physician supported the trial court's reconsideration of its prior order granting the physician's petition to compel arbitration of the patient's medical malpractice claim; the documents had been requested of the plan but not produced before the court ruled on the petition, and the court relied on the documents in reconsidering and vacating the order. Hollister v. Benzl (App. 4 Dist. 1999) 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 903, 71 Cal.App.4th 582, review denied. Alternative Dispute Resolution

	View Full Image

344

Motion to reconsider must include reference to new or different facts, circumstances, or law. In re Marriage of Oropallo (App. 2 Dist. 1998) 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 669, 68 Cal.App.4th 997. Motions

	View Full Image

39

To merit reconsideration, party must give satisfactory reason why it was unable to present its "new" evidence at original hearing. Foothills Townhome Assn. v. Christiansen (App. 4 Dist. 1998) 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 516, 65 Cal.App.4th 688, rehearing denied, review denied, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 874, 525 U.S. 1106, 142 L.Ed.2d 774. Motions

	View Full Image

39

Homeowner's belief that certain evidence was not necessary at hearing on summary judgment motion in homeowners association's action to recover unpaid assessment was patently insufficient to warrant reconsideration of trial court's ruling based on that evidence. Foothills Townhome Assn. v. Christiansen (App. 4 Dist. 1998) 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 516, 65 Cal.App.4th 688, rehearing denied, review denied, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 874, 525 U.S. 1106, 142 L.Ed.2d 774. Motions

	View Full Image

39

Movant was not entitled to vacation of summary judgment as matter of law, on claim that there was evidence showing triable issues of fact not presented in initial opposition to summary judgment motion; information was known to attorney at time of initial opposition, and he provided no explanation of why it was not presented at that time. Garcia v. Hejmadi (App. 1 Dist. 1997) 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 228, 58 Cal.App.4th 674, modified on denial of rehearing, review denied. Judgment

	View Full Image

378

Party seeking reconsideration of prior ruling upon alleged different set of facts must provide both newly discovered evidence and explanation for failure to have produced such evidence earlier. In re Marriage of Drake (App. 2 Dist. 1997) 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 466, 53 Cal.App.4th 1139, as modified, review denied. Motions

	View Full Image

39

To be entitled to reconsideration based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, party should show that evidence of new or different facts exist, and that party has satisfactory explanation for failing to produce such evidence at earlier time. Kalivas v. Barry Controls Corp. (App. 2 Dist. 1996) 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 200, 49 Cal.App.4th 1152. Motions

	View Full Image

39

Upon motion for reconsideration, moving party must provide trial court with satisfactory explanation as to why he or she failed to produce evidence at earlier time period. Lucas v. Santa Maria Public Airport Dist. (App. 2 Dist. 1995) 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 177, 39 Cal.App.4th 1017. Motions

	View Full Image

39

Party seeking reconsideration must provide not just new evidence or different facts, but a satisfactory explanation for failure to produce it at earlier time. Glade v. Glade (App. 2 Dist. 1995) 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 695, 38 Cal.App.4th 1441, rehearing denied, review denied. Motions

	View Full Image

39

Wife provided reasonable and credible explanation for failure to apprise superior court judge of family law court ordering staying foreclosure action, and, thus, superior court judge should have reached merits of wife's motion for reconsideration, where trust deed holder's lawyer had promised to bring copy of stay order to summary judgment hearing so that wife's lawyer could present it to superior court, holder's lawyer did not apprise superior court of stay order, wife's lawyer arrived just five minutes late for summary judgment hearing, and superior court did not permit wife's lawyer to speak. Glade v. Glade (App. 2 Dist. 1995) 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 695, 38 Cal.App.4th 1441, rehearing denied, review denied. Judgment

	View Full Image

186

Claim that trial court misinterpreted state law in its initial decision did not establish that motion to reconsider was based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law as statutorily required. Gilberd v. AC Transit (App. 1 Dist. 1995) 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 626, 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, modified on denial of rehearing, review denied. Motions

	View Full Image

39

Alleged fact that party seeking reconsideration of court orders had not intended to waive oral argument on initial motion did not constitute new fact or circumstance sufficient to satisfy statutory requirement for motion for reconsideration; allegation related to fact or circumstance that was wholly collateral to merits of initial motion, which was not sufficient to warrant reconsideration. Gilberd v. AC Transit (App. 1 Dist. 1995) 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 626, 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, modified on denial of rehearing, review denied. Motions

	View Full Image

39

Expert:	Travellawyer
Pos. Feedback:	100.0 %
Accepts:	176
Answered:	9/10/2007

Lawyer (JD)

Liscensed to practice law in CA and TX. CA State Bar Exam grader. 10 yrs. Litigation Exp.