Memorandum Points and AuthoritiesCal. Super. - 6th Dist.February 23, 202110 ll 12 713 14 l5 l6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Caneisha Howell PO BOX 21 13 San Jose, Ca. 95109 408-228-2626 Caneishalegal@gmai1.com Defendant, In Pro Per SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY 0F SANTA CLARA Case No.: 21CH009879 DEFENDANT CANEISHA HOWELL’S MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 0F THE THE OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF PITCHAYAPA CHAOWALIT’S NOTICE OF RELATED CASE (DEFENDANT IS ALSO FILING AN OPPOSITION IN 20CV367258 AND 20DV000265) DATE; S-I‘I-Z‘ TIME: 9qu N“ DEPT: ’L-Z, PITCHAYAPA CHAOWALIT Plaintiff, Vs. CANEISHA HOWELL Defendant. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Pitchayapa Chaowalit by and through her attorney of record filed a notice 0f related case regarding the above entitled case on February 23rd, 2021 (Exhibit A). The notice has not been served to the Defendant Caneisha Howell. The proof 0f service for the temporary civil harassment restraining order does not indicate that the notice 0f related case was served to the Defendant. This was intentionally done to prevent this Defendant from responding to such a frivolous and l OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASE 2 l CH009879 10 ll 12 13 l4 15 l6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 unmeritorious request. The basis for a case t0 be related are detailed in California Rules ofCourt 3.300. The Defendant objects t0 relating the following cases on the basis that, 1) the notice of related case was not filed in all pending cases listed in the notice and notice was not served on all parties in those cases, 2) the related cases do not arise from the same 0r substantially identical transactions, incidents, 0r events requiring the same determination of the same or substantially identical questions of [aw 0r fact, and 3) the notice 0f related case was not served and filed as soon as possible, but no later than 15 days after the facts concerning the existence 0f related cases became known, 4) the attorney of record failed to indicate the correct Court for the 20DV000265 case which is not the same as the above entitled case. STATEMENT OF FACTS On April 3m, 2020 Pitchyapa Chaowalit (hereafter Chaowalit) entered Menachem Hahns (hereafter Hahn) room and proceeded to assault him, in her own words, by grabbing Hahns pillow when he placed it over his head t0 silence out her tirade, hitting him multiple times with a candlestick, and biting his hand. Chaowalit proceeded to contact Milpitas Police Department with claims that she was the abused party. She filed a request for a temporaxy domestic violence restraining order against Hahn 0n April 8‘“, 2020. The request was granted. Hahn was granted a temporary restraining order against Chaowalit on August 3rd, 2020. Trial has not been set. On June 12th, 2020 Hahn filed a civil lawsuit citing breach of oral contract, general damages and special damages against Chaowalit. After there being no response t0 the complaint, Chaowalit was defaulted on September 22nd, 2020. Judgment is pending. On February 23rd, 2021 Chaowalit filed a request for a civil harassment restraining order against Howell claiming stalking, harassment, demands and threats of criminal action and unauthorized practice 0f law. On March 9‘“, 2021, Howell responded with a motion for antislapp after hearing that a server was trying to serve paperwork to her and not being aware that there was a filing against her. Then afier stalking Howell at the post office, Paul Rogers, Chaowalits attorney of record, 2 OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASE 21 CH009879 10 ll 12 l3 14 l5 l6 17 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 ,26 27 28 demanded a process server serve only the CH-IOO t0 Howell by placing the documents under her windshield wiper instead of 0n her car which resulted in the wiper breaking. This caused case 21CH009937 to be filed against Paul Rogers. LEGAL STANDARD California Rules ofCourt 3.300 defines how the court should determine if a case qualifies t0 be related. In the above entitled case, the Defendant objects t0 the request that the three cases herein be related and consolidated to one court. California Rules ofCourt 3.300 (a), “A pending civil case is related to another pending civil case, or t0 a civil case that was dismissed with 0r without prejudice, or to a civil case that was disposed of by judgment, if the cases: I) involve the same parties and are based 0n the same 0r similar claims; 2) arise from the same 0r substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination 0f the same 0r substantially identical questions 0f law 0r fact; 3) involve claims against, title to, possession of, 0r damages t0 the same property; or 4) are likely for other reasons t0 require substantial duplication ofj udicial resources if heard by different judges”. In the case titled, Chaowalit vs. Hahn (20DV000265), 2) the claims do not arise from the same 0r substantially identical transactions, incidents, 0r events as the claims in 21CH009879. In case 20DV000265, parties argue that each has been the victim 0f domestic violence against the other, and have mutual restraining orders. In that case, the court will determine who the dominant aggressor was and who acted in self defense. In case 21 CH009879, there are n0 similar incidents or events. The 20DV000265 case has no trial date set at this time. In the case titled, Hahn vs. Chaowalit (2OCV367258), 2) the claims do not arise from the same or substantially identical, transactions, incidents, or events as the claims in 21CH009879. In case 20CV3 67258, Hahn presented evidence regarding medical damages, a breach 0f oral agreement for rental payments, and a request for punitive damages. There are n0 same 0r similar incidents 0r events. That case is pending judgment against Chaowalit as a result of her default. According t0 California Rules ofCourt 3.300 (c), “the notice of related case must, 1) List all 3 OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASE 21CH009379 10 ll 12 13 14 15 l6 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 civil cases that are related by court, case name, case number, and filing date”. In the present case it is a civil harassment case in the civil court at 191 N. First Street San Jose, Ca. 951 13. The 20DV000265 case is in the family court at 201 N. First Street San Jose, Ca. 951 13 in department 66. According t0 California Rules ofCourf 3.300 (d), “the notice 0f related case must be filed in all pending cases listed in the notice and must be served 0n all parties in those cases”. As previously mentioned, the Defendant has not been served the notice 0f related case (Exhibit B). It appears that in case 20DV000265 the case access website does not list the notice 0f related case, nor is the notice listed as part of the 20CV367258 case register. According to California Rules ofCourt 3.300 (e), “the notice 0f related case must be served and filed as soon as possible, but n0 later than 15 days after the facts concerning the existence of related cases become known”. Counsel Paul Rogers has been hocking his allegations that the Defendant has harassed the Plaintiff since October 2020 to use it t0 intimidate Hahn into settlement 0f the domestic violence case. Then Counsel Paul Rogers used the allegations as a tactic t0 intimidate Hahn to set aside his default gained by Chaowalit’s inaction. The Plaintiff and her Counsel’s significant delay t0 file a civil harassment request until after they were in receipt of Hahns motion for sanctions for $50,000, is without merit and frivolous, specifically when the Plaintiff and Counsel are aware that the accusations of harassment are regarding communications are privileged and inadmissible as evidence. The antislapp filed by the Defendant details the defense 0f the Defendant t0 the claims of harassment by the Plaintiff and Counsel. According to Cahfornia Rules ofCourt 3.300 (h) (2) (A), “If the related cases are pending in more than one superior court on notice t0 all parties, the judge t0 whom the earliest filed case is assigned may confer informally with the panics and with the judges to whom each related case is assigned, t0 determine the feasibility and desirability ofjoint discovery orders and other informal or formal means of coordinating proceedings in the cases”. It appears that Judge Carrie Zepeda would preside over the earliest filed case. It would be up to her t0 confer with parties informally and with the Judges to whom each related case is assigned. It should be noted, that Judge Manoukian has 4 OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASE 21CH009879 10 ll 12 l3 l4 15 l6 l7 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 already made it abundantly clear after giving his final ruling concerning Chaowalit and Rogers motion to reconsider the order t0 set aside the default that the claims of harassment allegedly by Howell to Chaowalit as a reason why Chaowalit did not respond to the complaint by Hahn are irrelevant as he stated in the orders, “Because the motion and the supporting declaration fail to show any new or different facts, circumstances or law but instead consists 0f vague and conclusory allegations, and other irrelevant argument, this Court must deny the motion” (Exhibit C). The entire motion was based on the claims that now are being sought in the civil harassment court. Plaintiff and Counsel hop from court t0 court when they don’t'receive the desired results. They have created a subterfuge out of Hahns’ legitimate claims of abuse. CONCLUSION The opposition t0 the Notice of Related Case filed by Paul Rogers 0n behalf of Pitchayapa Chaowalit should be denied. Dated: 4/19/2020. Defen ant n Pro Per 5 OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASE 21CH009879 ' E H 5 5T A ‘ . 1 .o~.-‘. . -. u r- .1 .‘ :~,v.‘< , -;, ,-,_lw-y~ l'illll ‘1. RUUL'h .decux | :m (hump 55 N. Mark"! SI fill". Szm .lusc. t .\ USI ltl 'i-u.._-.; -:. th-(1-H-SMP‘ =..-.t.;- -' m cram“ -:c:.«-. pol {u mlx'uuulm ‘ cum 1i”: - ' -"~ l’ilchuymu ( 'hzumulil SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA. COUNTY 0F Hunk: (' lulu "1.1.!“- I‘H \. lux‘ISt. h.m.ln.~.c L \‘JSII‘ a -«-.:«.-' I‘H \'. [1'er 5!. Sun .lusu ( .\ 95E l‘ .3' Szmhm ‘ISI l.» S 'i,\.:ili@31>i§ulcvl I v m..~.-_ ;,. swmn- I mannoweu [’ilcllu) upa( hauw' llil {rmi?reomrxtuzsmmmr (.‘uncishzl Huuull NOTICE OF RELATED CASE u ’.L.1':L-_mx‘|x H4 239nm}: mc-Inunologamlorder accotdmg rormru o! Mum ailcases miutedlo me: cusc-rcferonuod abuvc I a rule ('hnnu‘alil \'. Hulm I) Casenumnc: .‘.IH)VU{'JU3¢35 t: Com Sumnasubuve L 0mm snare 0r teuman cam! mmnu um! addruyw u Demmnent l’umil} Division o Casulypc T: Iumled cwll Em: unrumltedrzivn L; probate [Zn 1 Fiung uaxe :\p:‘i|8.21)2ll _ CM7015 1 nouns fanniy lam ; __:'_| ulher (spuufw g Has nus case been designated or delemfined as "complex?" [:1 Yes {:4 .3 No r n Relauonshm oi mu; case lo the case Icrlclencnd elbow;- {cncck ml mat uppry). ;:1\.'0i\.'es me same names and :1: nasml 0n 1m: same u: sumllar claims arises :rom me samu- 0! gubslanmify Iduntlcal Iranszmhnns mmdents. o: mums: requmng the deienmnanon u! fna- samu or Suoslanlvnliy luenhcal qacbtmns 0? lav. ct 'ani :, I 5 much. es ciarms agmnsi. mic 20 pussussmn Ul or damage“ lo messame nrupcny .5 mum for olher reasons m rename Suosmnuai dupnczman of lummnr resouxces If naam‘ by dqflcmm [udgezx Aammnal expianauoz‘. v=- anacnurj In allucnmen! 1:; u Status ofcase .7“ uenmxg msrrusseu‘ _ mm :7. ‘ wnnum mvmnmce unsposeupi by judgment 2 a 'ch Mcnuchun liuhn v. I’ilchuytpa(‘humullit b Case number 2(K'V367253 c Cour! 17:: sameas above u‘: 0mm sxate 0r federal co-Jr‘. mama am! .‘zdamsw r1 UepzulmC-nl (.i\ ii (DUDI. 2”! NOTICE 0F RELATED CASE l n Ip. m MNm-Ias-T m long»: Pilchu} upn ('humxulil CM-O'I 5 ' '. mi =- 1 mar'mmwI/iaYSPOrthsm (‘nncislm HUN.“ __ .‘w .7. _.,. VH ,_.. U. -d V.. J ._ (command! t.- Case lype L; '1 limited cw” L {-3 unilmlted cwil {-_] probate [:3 famaly law {L} other (5pcczry) t Fumg caze Uh 132020 g. Has mus caso been desugnated or demurnmed us "comprex'?" l,‘ ‘ I Yes l' I ,' Nu n Relauonsmu of mss case Io the casa- refemnced above {s'znuck' (:H ma! :m;1!y1 ”wolves the same panics and :5 based (m lhi: same ur summit claims V- I anses hem the same or suhstantralty Identical transactions mmiems or events rcumung m: (:ctcz'mrmzmw o! rm: samu- o.’ subslamrafi', \scwhcm questions cf raw gr faCI .nvolvcs claims against tine :0 possessaon L3" or tlcm‘lages m the same properly , :5 nkely tor other reasons 1c renum: Subsunnai uuphcauon of Jumcyat :cwur'tss If Imam by afitcrvm gauge» ,. [\(Idlllonal uxpmnzltéun :5 zlltnched m atlachment 2n I Slams cicase L'.’ . penning “mm Clsmasscd :__ With _:__ wmwut prejudice ' disposed of by judgment (I Tmu l) Case number u Com! : __ same 2:5 above 0mm Slam m lemma! Cum: (mum: um; .uwmbm L! Department u Casezmze mmeuam «gnawed cm: ' prooalt: fanniy raw f' ’ i otner rsxmum I f-‘Ihng uzlte g Has mas case nuen deangmned ov detemmmd as “compzey'r #J Yes f" NO - h Relationahsp o! vus case [a me case tefemnced aladve (azrrnu_-/c nu ma: appm w} .nvcives the same pmues am: Is unset! 0n lhc- same or snmlar claims :‘mses from the same 0v substzumzllly Identmal lransuctlons :nmdonls or meme :uquarmg the delcurmnazior u: me- same m sunslanually manhcal Questsuna 0f iaa or fact . - , Involves claims against hilt.- lo. possession of, or dnnmges to mu same property ts hkeiy for other reasons Io reqwre substantml duphcahon ofgudima! resources :f neard by dtffer 3m wages LL} Additional explanation Is anached in attacnmcm Zi'n Status. oi case gendm: E msmrsscu _ _§ wlm 1......i Wutlmulmulmhce stapr‘s'ce: of ‘53 Judgment l Adumonai Ioialed cases am described Ir; Allachmeut -'. Number of pages anacned __“M Dale UZ'EI llfll (.-"“*~\ I fa) < l’uul ix. Rugcn ‘_ I ’ 4/0: z (6 4,5} l“ “ "i" '--"v‘5 A; v ‘- ~'.-‘ r 7.; ,- .‘.'..'.' . “La :J‘r ‘ru . " ."">“""“"" t NOTICE 0F REL'ATErTcflsE w ‘ I-“r -" h .4 aH~--fi>_-_‘- ‘ ‘i-u . ¥ ‘-_ --7‘# »- 7- Pdgg-‘JDYS CM-O1 5 :npw-n-r riv'ltl(;..._.. I’ilch:l}up:1 I ‘lxmmuiil ‘ ‘ ' :1 J nuvms'ei sirnm m ('amciwhal Iluuull PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST~CLASS MAIL NOTICE 0F RELATED CASE (NOTE: You cannot serve tho Notice of Related Case i! you arc a party in tho action. Tho purwm who served tho "mica musr compIcro this proof o! service. The notice must be sewed on all known pam‘es in each rotated action or proceeding.) t mu m least Ia )‘cars aid arm not a party to this action. I am a resmunt of o: enmzom m the count I -.-.'::er.2 nus: mahngt wrin- piace: and my res:dence 0r business audress us (speedy! 3 ! :ur‘nL-i! a cc: J «J? Ema :‘Jobm: u! F‘Y‘zi3:r,-:: L‘Ius‘u L, uncleszzzg I: 1x a Suzuuu‘ en-suscni: mm nrswnass ;):)5tag-: nut; wrupazd and ‘ 'zm’l. une) ‘ H . qcposucu mu sealed cumlope mu: Inc: Ullllud Slums Postai SuIVIm Z.‘ Dlaccu me seaic-u enuebne ‘3' :olhacttron um! nmcessmg for menimg; roilozmng rims :msmuss‘s umm' ;.v:y:1=: ' ML" wtucr‘. 1 am mam” farmilar Um me same (:ay cerresncndunce Is plasma Tar :czluczum 21m: ranmaz ' s menosaleu m the animus», csursa oi mismcss 5mm me Urrzec Slams Poster: Sumac u lhu Nottu: 0f Nommz.‘ Case was mmied c! 0Y1 L(If’lfr'." ::- nonuoq. xmrs:a.'9‘ u 'Hu: unvelopc was addressed and mauled .15 follows z. Name 0f person serveu c Nami- ur purson semen! Sucel address Strcc! addluss. Clly Cit"? 331ml:- anu 3.1:; Coca. Stale: am! my: coca n Name u! person sowed r1 Nmne uf nulsun serum: Strum address Strum aacrcss Clly C11; 15mm emu .np code Starr;- anr: mp code Names anc addresses 01' mlmtasna! (12:50:15, served arc ultacner: x 'y’on nun use mm; POSWOW} j I (zeclme unde: penalty of pcuur‘y uncer the Imus o! mu Stale 0! Cahromm that the fouzgmng re true unci correct Duh: OTICE 0F RELATED‘bA’sE” um: . EXHIBIT B CH-ZOO Proof of Personal Service G) ® Person Seeking Protection PITCHAYAPA CHAOWAUT Person FromWhom Protection Is Sought CANEISHA HOWELL Clerk stamps date here when farm Jsflled. Eiectronicaliy Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Ciara, on 3I18I2021 3:24 PM Reviewed By: K. Nguyen Case #21CH009879 Notice to Sewer The server must: o Be 18 years of age or cider. o Not be listed 1n Items® or of fonn CH-‘I 00 a lea a copy ofall documents checked In® to the person In® (You cannot send them by mall.) Then 2085mm and slgn thls ® form, and glue or mall It to the person in PROOF 0F PERSONAL SERVICE ® [gave the person In® a copy ofall the documents checked below: CH-1 09. (Notice of Court Hearing CH-1 1 0. Temporary Remaining Order CH-1 00, Requestfor CM} Harassment Restraining Orders Envelope: 6064353 fill In co urt name and street address superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara 191 N 1st 5t Sanjose, CA 95113 Fm In case number: C853 NUmbEn 21 CH009379 G) © 01-120. Response to Requestfor CM) Harassment Restmlnlng Orders (blank form) 0+1 20-!NFO, Haw Can I Respond to a Requestfor Civil Harassment Remaining Orders? 0-1-1 30. Civil Harassment Restraining OrderAfier Hearing CHeoo. Proof of Firearms Tamed In, Sold. or Sf0r8d (blank form) Other (sperm): UUDUUDEU l personally gave coples of the documents checked above to the person in® on: a. Date: Thu,Mar18,2021 b. Tlme: 10:16 [:1 am. E p.m. c. Atthls address: 105N 1stSt State: CA le:Clty: Sanjose 95113 Servers Information Name: EDDIE CAMILLERI @LEGAL PURSUIT, INC. Address: 22 W. St. John Street # B Clty: SAN JOSE Telephone: 408-288-4105 (Ifyou are a regimed pro cess server): County of registratlon: SANTA CMRA State: CA 21p: 95113 Registration number: 922 I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws of the State of Callfomla that the Infommtlon above Is true and correct. Date: 0311 8/2021 EDDIE CAMILLERI /. % ‘ Jype or printsm/er’s name Server signs heéafier serving Judldal Coundl oi Caflfornla, mmmurflnfowgav ’ Raulsodjuiy 1. 2014, Optional Form Proof of Personal Service CH-ZDO. Paga1 011 (Clull Harassment Prevention) , Code of CMI Procedure. §§ 5275 EXHIBIT C SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY 0F SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN COURTHOUSE 191 NORTH FIRSTSTREET SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95 1 13 CIVIL DIVISION Menachem M Hahn PO BOX 2113 SAN JOSE CA 951 09 RE: Menachem Hahn vs Pitchayapa Chaowallt Case Number: 200V367258 PROOF OF SERVICE ORDERS 0N MOTION 0F DEFENDANT FOR RECONSIDERATION AND ON MOTION OF PLAINTIFF FOR SANCTIONS was delivered to the parties listed below the above entitled case as set forth In the sworn declaration below. lf you. a party represented by you, or a witness to be called on behafl' ot that party need an accommodation under the American wlth Dlsabllltles Act. please con1ac1 the Court Administraior‘s office at (408) 882-2700, or use the Court's TDD line (408) 882-2690 or the Voice/TDD California ReIay Service (BOO) 735-2922. DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL: i declare that l served this notlce by enclosing a 1rue copy ln a seaied envalope, addresged to each person whose name is shown below. and by depositing the anvetope with postage fully prepaid. In the United States Mall at San Jose, CA 0n April 05. 2021. CLERK OF THE COURT. by Hlentrang Tranlhien. Deputy. cc: Christina Ann Hickey Best Best & Krieger LLP 2001 N Main St Ste 390 Walnut Creek GA 94596 Paul Edward Rogers Advocas Law Group 255 North Market St #125 San Jose CA 951 1o CW-9027 REV 12/08/16 PROOF OF SERVICE Order Issued on Submitted Matter SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA DEPARTMENT 20 161 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 408.882.2320 - 408.882.2296 (fax) smanoukian@scscourt.org http;//www.scscourt.org CASE No.2 20CV367258 Menachem Hahn v. Pitchayapa Chaolit/ DATE: 25 March 2021 TIME: 9:00 am LINE NUMBERz/7 I 5+é IV Order on Submitted Matter. Orders on Motlon of Defendantfor Reconsideration and on Motion of Plaintiff for Sanctions. |. Statement of Facts. A. Introduction. Plaintiff flied this complaint on 12 June 2020.1 This Court is familiar with the facts ofthls matter. The case of City of Milpitas v. Menachem Hahn #200V366941 is a case between plaintiff here and the City of Milpitas Involving firearms rellnquishment proceeding. In addition to the firearms relinquishment case, there is a domestic violence case bearing Case Number 20DV000265fi B. Factual Background. Plaintiff was arrested by City of Milpitas police officers following that event. They conducted a check of the Automated Firearm System and Ieamed that plaintiff owned two firearms. These weapons are identified as: 1. Kimber, model: Eclipse Custom II, .45ACP, semi-automatic pistol. serial #K626962: and 2. Century Arms imported Romarm, model: WASR-IO. 7.62x39mm, semi-automatic rifle, serial #A16318718. Plaintiff gave permission to the officers to retn'eve the weapons forsafekeeping. Almost a month later the arrest was reclassified to a detention. Additionally, the DistrictAttomey rejected prosecution. Finally. the ostensibfe victim has declared that she has no fear of weapons and never did. She will testify that there was no domestic violence involved in the home. contrary to what she indicated in her Family Court filing. Plaintiff here [s represented by counsel In the Family Court matter. In a trial bn‘ef filed by his Family Law counsel on 19 August 2020, he contends that the parties were in an on and off date relationship which ended on or about April 3rd. 2020. Petjflonerwaited overthree days to seek any medical care while Respondent immediately sought medical care upon release from custody on April 4th, 2020. 1 This Department Intends to comply with the time requirements of the Trlai Court Delay Reduction Act (Government Code. §§ 68600-68620). The California Rules of Court state that the goal of each trial court should be to manage limited and unfimited clvil cases from filing so mat 100 percent are disposed of wimin 24 months. (Ca. St. CM! Rules of Court. Rule 3.714(b)(1)(0) and (b)(2)(C). 2 This Court has taken judicial notice of the file and its contents. On 21 August 2020 Petitioner Pitchayap Chaowalit sought a continuance of a hearing to 30 September 2020 at 1:30 PM to altow her to retaln counsel. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by Judge Zepeda was extended by her to that same date. This Court atso notes that on 12 June 2020 Mr. Menachem flied a personal injury action against Pitchayap Chaowalit 8 December 2020 Order On Motion of Defendant for Relief from Default. Page 1 of 5 In the forfeiture action. plaintiff claims that return of the weapons is justified by a preponderance of the evidence that there ls no risk to the alleged victim and there was never any n'sk of harm to anyone. C. The Motion to Set Aside Default. While the firearms relinquishment matter was pending in this Department. this Court noted mat on 12 June 2020 Mr. Menachem filed this ven‘fied personal injury complaint In propria persona against Pitchayap Chaowalit. In sum, he alleges that he was assaulted by defendant following disputes over contributions toward rent payments. 0n 3 April 2020, defendant committed an assault and battery upon plaintiff and moved out of the apartment leaving piaintiff to cover defendants rent for January. March, April and May of this year. The file contains a proof of service showing that defendant was served 0n 1 July 2020 at 9:40 AM in the Family Justice Center Courthouse. Defendant thought that default papers in the personal injury action were related to domestic violence case. After two unsuccessful attempts. plaintiff managed to have a default entered against defendant on 9 September 2020. With the assistance of counsel, defendant filed this motion for relief from default on 9 October 2020. Defendant declares that she is a native of Thailand and did not speak English at aII prior to coming to this country five years ago. She states that her abiiity to speak and read English is still limited. Defendant further declares that she filed the petition for a restraining order on 8 Apn‘l 2020. On 4 June 2020. plaintiff Hahn filed a petition for a restraining orderagainst her. That matterwas set fora hearing on 12 November 2020 in Department 66. That hean‘ng was confinued to 22 February 2021 when the Court offered a onetime continuance to defendant to hire counsel. Plaintiff declares. In his amended declaration in opposition to the motion, that on 13 May 20203 they moved into an apartment in Milpitas. He declares that he was attacked by defendant on 3 April 2020 while he was in bed. She bit his hand and now he has nerve damage and may need surgery. In 1] 10, defendant declares that he attempted to globally settle all cases and never heard back until the end of September 2020 when defendant's attorney. Mr. Rogers, threatened his attorney with a violation of the temporary restraining order for his document assistant reaching out to defendant t0 request the global settlement of all claims. Mr. Rogers told plaintiff's attorney that he should set aside the default and agreed to a peaceful contact order with the defendant. Plaintiff refused. Mr. Rogers later had a conversation with plaintiff about the motion to set aside the default, stating that the court only cares about the merits of the case and assured him that he (plaintiff) will not see a penny. This Court posted the tentative ruling and heard the motion on the chailenge by defendant To determine whether a party's mistake or neglect is excusabie, a court inquires whether a " ‘reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances' might have made the same error. [Citation.]” (Generals Bank Nederiand v. Eyes of the Beholder (1 998) 61 Cal.AppAm 1384, 1 399.) The declaration of defendant and her counsel did not give this Court enough information to determine that there was excusable neglect, mistake or any other misapprehension. This has been a heavin-Iifigated matter with Several lawsuits between the parties. It appears that defendant had been represented by counsel oratleastthe benefit of legal assistance at the time of the service of her papers. tn fact. she was served in The Family Justice Center Courthouse. The Self-Help Center was in the same building. If she thought it had to do with the domestic viotence case, she did nothing further to do anything. The motion to set aside the default was denied. ll. Motion of Defendant for Reconsideration and on Motion of Plaintiff for Sanctions. Defendant filed this motion for reconsideration on 8 January 2021. 3This Court wonders if that date should have been 2019. On 9 February 2021, plaintiff the cross-mofion for sanctions. Ill. . Analysis. A Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideratlon. Code of Civil Procedure, § 1008(3) states: “When an application for an order has been made to aJudge, or to a court, and refused In whole or in part, or granted, orgranted conditionally. or on tems, any party affected by the order may. within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice 0f entry of the order and based upon new 0r different facts. circumstances, or law. make application to the same judge or court that made the order. to reconsiderthe matterand modify, amend, or revoke the priororder. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and t0 whatjudge. what order 0r decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown." To move for reconsidemfion of a prior court order on the basis of “new or different facts" or newly discovered evidence, the moving party must provide to this Court a satisfactory explanation forthe failure [o produce that evidence at an eadierflrne. (Shiffer V. CBS Corp. (2015) 240 Cal.AppA'“ 246, 255.) ' The first step on a motion for reconsideration is to determine whether the moving party has complied with procedural requirements and set forth a basis for reconsideration. The moving party is required to file a motion within 10 days of service of a foma! notice of ruling. (Code of Civil Procedure, §1008(a).) The instant motion was timely flied on , which was the th day after the clerk mailed notice of the order t0 the parties. The moving party is also required to state "by affidavit" what appfication 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 of Civil Procedure, §1008(a).) The legislative intent of this requirement was to limit motions for reconsideration to circumstances where a party offers the court some fact or circumstance not previously considered and some valid reason for not offen'ng it earlier. (See Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494. 1500.) The moving party must present a satisfactory explanation for failing to provide the evidence eariier, which can oniy be descn‘bed as a strict requirement ofdiligence. (See Garcia v. Hejmadl (1 997) 58 Cal.App.4fl1 674. 690.) lfthe statutory requirements are met, the court should grant reconsideration. That does not, however, mean that the court must rule differently on the motion; upon reconsideration. the court may simply reaffirm its on‘ginal order. (See Corns v. Miller - (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 195, 202.) Reconsideration cannot be granted based on claims the Court misinterpreted the law in its initial ruling. (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.AppAth 1494, 1500.) However. it can be granted based 0n legal principles that were not considered in the initial ruling provided that the party provides a reasonable explanation for not producing those legal principles at the first hearing. (Baldwin v. Home Savings ofAmen'ca (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192. 1198- 1199.) Otherwise, “the number of times a court could be required to reconsider its prior orders would be limited only by the ability of counsel to belatedly conjure a 1ega| theory different from those previously rejected. . . .” (g at 1199.) A party filing either a motion under Code of CM! Procedure, § 1008. subdivision (a) or (b) is seeking a new result in the tn'al court based upon new 0r different facts, circumstances, or law. (Change Coffee, Inc. v. Applied Undenwiters, Inc, (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1247, 1252 (citing Tate v. Wilburn, (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 150, 159- 160.) A motion for reconsideration is authorized only when the motion is based on new or different facts. circumstances. or law. (McPherson v. City of Manhattan Beach (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1252. 1285; Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494. 1500-1501 .) The party moving for reconsiderafion on the basis of new or different facts must make a threshold showing of diligence which requires a satisfactory explanation for failing to provide the evidence earlier. (McPherson v. City ofManhaflan Beach. supra. 78 Cal.AppAlh at 1265; see also Garcia v. Hejmadl (1997) 58 Cal.AppAm 674. 688691.) Even if new or different facts are provided with the renewed motion. the moving party must provide the court with a satisfactory explanation as to why he or she faiied to produce the evidence at an earlier time. (Even Zohar o n---...L,... anon nrAm- fin Mnfinn nF Defendant fm- Relief from Default. Pam: 3 nF R Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellalro Townhouses, LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4m 830, 839 (“courts have onstrued section 1008 to require a party filing an application for reconsideration or a renewed application to show diligence wlth a satisfactory expianation for not having presented the new or different infomation earliel"); see also People v. Safely National Casually Carp. (2010) 186 Cal.AppA'“ 959, 974 (”Facts 0f Which a party seeking reconsiderafion was aware at the time of the original ruling are not “new 0r different facts,‘ as would support a trial court's grant ofreconsideration. [Citation] To men‘t reconsideration, a party must also provide a satisfactory reason why itwas unable to present its new evidence at the original hearing. ”] .) More recent cases construing Code of CM! Procedure. § 1008 have herd that “[a] motion for reconsideration must be based on new 0r different facts, circumstances 0r law [citation], and facts of which the party seeking reconsideration was aware at the time of the original ruling are not 'new 0r different.‘ (In re Marriage ofHerr (2009) 174 Cal.AppAU‘ 1463. 1468; see also Hennigan v. White (2011) 199 Cal.AppAm 395, 405-406 (motion for reconsideration of summaryjudgment properly denied where. at the tjme of the on’ginal ruling, the plaintiff was aware of the information in the new declarafions she sought to offer); Garcia v. Hejmadi, supra at 8 Cal.App.4”‘ 688, 690.) Moving party defendant failed to make a strong showing, or any showing. of diligence which is required for a motion for reconsideration. (Forrest v. Department of Corporations (2007) 150 Cal.AppAth 183, 202 (a motion for reconsideration requires a strong showing of dilIgence, disapproved on another point in Shalant v. Girardi (201 1) 51 Ca1.4‘“ 1164, 1172. fn. 3: see aiso Mink v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.AppAm 133B, 1342 (the party seeking reconsideration must offer a satisfactory explanation forthe failure to produce the new or different facts at an earlier time.) In this case, all of the material discussed in the moving papers was information that was presumptively within the knowledge of the defendant at the time she was served with the papers. In the motion to set aside the default, her soul explanation was that she misunderstood the nature of the papers. Because the motion and the supporting declaration fail to show any new or different facts, circumstances or law but instead consists of vague and conclusory allegations, and other irrelevant argument, this Court must deny the motion. ' B. Motion of Plaintiff for Sanctlons. Plaintiff seeks the sum of $50,000 against defendantand her counsel because of his contention that the motion to reconsider is without merit. (Code ofCM! Procedure, § 128.7.) This Court must deny the request. First, “Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 provides that the filing of a pleading cenifies that, to the attorney or unrepresented party’s knowledge, information, and belief. formed afteran inquiry reasonable underthe circumstances. the pleading is not being presented primarilyfor an improper purpose, the claims, defenses and other legal contentions therein are warranted, and the allegations and otherfactual contentions have evidentiary support. ([d.. subd. (b).) If these standards are violated. the court can impose an appropriate sanction sufficient to deter future misconduct, including a monetary sanction. (Id., subds. (c), (d).) (citation'omitted) The purpose of section 128.7 is to deter frivolous fiiings. (citation omitted)" (Kojababian v. Genuine Home Loans, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.AppA‘“ 408, 421 .) However. as plaintiff i5 representing himself. he is not entitled to recovery of fees. “[A1n attorney who chooses to litigate in propria persona and therefore does not pay or become liable to pay consideration in exchange for legal representation cannot recover "reasonable attorney's fees" under [Civil Code,] section 171T as compensation for the time and effort he expands on his own behaif or for the professional business opportunities he forgoes as a result of his decision." (Trope v. Katz (1 995) 11 Ca|.4‘h 274. 292; see Musaeflan v. Adams (2009) 45 Calm“ 512, 520: “We hold therefore that an attorney who responds In pro se to a filing abuse may not recover sanctions under section 128.7 in the form of an award of attorney fees“; Argaman v. Ratan (1999) 73 Cal.AppA'h 1173, 1179.) An exception exists for reasonably identified expenses incurred. (Kravitz v. Superior Court (Milner) (2001) 91 Cal.App.4fh 1015, 1017.4 4A pro se litigant cannot recover attomefs fees as a discovery sanction. but he can recover the ”reasonable expenses" he has A second exception applies where a defendant was assisted by another lawyer in an action on a contract .th an attomey fee provision. (Mix v. Tumanjan Development Corp. (2002) 102 Cal.AppAlh 1318, 1321-1326 neld that “an attorney representing himself or herself. who prevails in an action 0n a contract with an attorney fee provision (CM! Code, § 1717), may recover reasonable attomey fees Incurred for legal services of other attorneys who assist the pro se attorney in the prosecution or defense of the action. even if the assisting attorneys do not appear as attorneys of record in the action.” “A memberof a law firm who is represented by otherattomeys in the firm 'incurs' fees within the meaning 0f Civil Code section 1717." Gilbert v. Master Washer & Stamping Co. (2001) 87 Cal.AppA‘h 212, 221. Here, plaintiff has provided evidence that he spent $15.00 in costs for e-filing papers with respect to this motion. Defendant shall pay to plaintiff the sum of $15.00 within 20 days 0f the filing and service of this Order. IV. Tentative Ruling and Hearing. No tentative ruling was posted. At the hearing on this matter, Mr. R_ogers appeai‘éd in péfio‘n for defindént and Mr. Hahn appeared on the Zoom platform on behalf of himself. The matterwas argued and submitted. V. Case Management. There is a Case Management Conference currently set for 20 May 2021 at 10:00 AM in this Department. Good cause appearing, |T IS ORDERED that the CMC currently set be VACATED and reset to 1 June 2021 at 9:00 AM to be heard immediately following the motion to quash which is currently set. Vi. Conclusion and Order. The motion of defendant to reconsider the order denying the motion to vacate the defaultjudgment entered against her is DENIED. The motion of plaintiff forsanctions against defendant is denied except that defendant shall pay to piaintiff the sum of $15.00 within 20 days of the filing and service 0f this Order. Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that the CMC currently set be VACATED and reset to 1 June 2 at 9:00 AM t0 be heard immediately following the motiont ash whi_»h is currently set. 0Q £9ng Aim . HON. stRATEs PETER MANOUKIAN __ Judge of the Superior Court 9F” ‘ ‘ \ ounty of Santa Clara h .. "incurred,” including photocopying. computer-assisted |ega1 research. and other identifiable and allocable costs.“ (internal punctuation modified.)