New York Times Co. v. Superior Court

Bad Law
135 Cal. App. 4th 206·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1974·2005 Daily Journal DAR 14889·37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 338·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10878
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 28, 2005B183768California3,218 words

Opinion

Opinion

Epstein, J.

We hold the trial court order granting a motion for reconsideration violated Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, authoritatively construed in Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 249 ] (Le Francois), a case decided after the trial court ruling. Section 1008, subdivision (a) requires that a party seeking reconsideration base its motion upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law. The moving party also must provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure to make the showing at or before the time the challenged order was issued. The moving party in this case failed to do either. The trial court may grant reconsideration on its own instance, but that is not what happened in this case.

The New York Times Company (NYT) petitioned for a writ of mandate ordering the superior court to (1) vacate its grant of reconsideration of its prior order granting summary judgment in favor of NYT; (2) vacate its resultant denial, on reconsideration, of NYT’s motion for summary adjudication on the remaining cause of action; and (3) reinstate its order granting summary judgment in favor of NYT. We shall grant the relief requested.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.