14 Cited authorities

Forrest v. Department of Corporations
150 Cal.App.4th 183 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 74 times
In Forrest, the court considered whether a prefiling order entered pursuant to section 391.7, subdivision (a) permits a trial court to dismiss a vexatious litigant's lawsuit if the vexatious litigant becomes unrepresented during the pendency of the lawsuit.
Kojababian v. Genuine Home Loans, Inc.
174 Cal.App.4th 408 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 62 times
In Kojababian v. Genuine Home Loans, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 408, 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 288 (Kojababian), the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.
Tate v. Wilburn
184 Cal.App.4th 150 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) Cited 57 times
Concluding a renewed motion pursuant to section 1008, subdivision (b), is not appealable
Baldwin v. Home Savings of America
59 Cal.App.4th 1192 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) Cited 80 times
In Baldwin, the court concluded the requirements for a motion for reconsideration were not met where the motion was based on a case not previously cited, but not newly decided, and was supported by a declaration that merely stated the case was found after the adverse order was made.
Gilbert v. Master Washer Stamping Co.
87 Cal.App.4th 212 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) Cited 65 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Gilbert v. Master Washer & Stamping Co., 104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 461, 467-69 (Ct. App. 2001), the defendant partner had been sued personally and his law firm was not a party to the case (Prince's situation exactly).
Argaman v. Ratan
73 Cal.App.4th 1173 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) Cited 64 times
Reversing discovery sanctions awarded self-represented attorney
Gilberd v. AC Transit
32 Cal.App.4th 1494 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) Cited 72 times
In Gilberd, a party sought reconsideration on the theory that its counsel's failure to request oral argument on the motion that led to the order subject to the reconsideration motion constituted a "new fact" within the meaning of section 1008, subdivision (a).
Mink v. Superior Court
2 Cal.App.4th 1338 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) Cited 73 times
Concluding the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion for relief from a judgment
Mix v. Tumanjan Development Corp.
102 Cal.App.4th 1318 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 40 times
In Mix v. Tumanjan Development Corp. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1318, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 267, an attorney, Terence Mix, filed an action in propria persona against the landlord of the building in which he rented office space.
McPherson v. City of Manhattan Beach
78 Cal.App.4th 1252 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) Cited 44 times
Holding that there was no "new" evidence even where a party claimed it was precluded from presenting its interpretation of the law, where the law and the interpretation had been presented in the briefs

Memorandum Points and Authorities

14 Cited authorities

In Forrest, the court considered whether a prefiling order entered pursuant to section 391.7, subdivision (a) permits a trial court to dismiss a vexatious litigant's lawsuit if the vexatious litigant becomes unrepresented during the pendency of the lawsuit.

In Kojababian v. Genuine Home Loans, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 408, 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 288 (Kojababian), the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.

Concluding a renewed motion pursuant to section 1008, subdivision (b), is not appealable

In Baldwin, the court concluded the requirements for a motion for reconsideration were not met where the motion was based on a case not previously cited, but not newly decided, and was supported by a declaration that merely stated the case was found after the adverse order was made.

In Gilbert v. Master Washer & Stamping Co., 104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 461, 467-69 (Ct. App. 2001), the defendant partner had been sued personally and his law firm was not a party to the case (Prince's situation exactly).

Reversing discovery sanctions awarded self-represented attorney

In Gilberd, a party sought reconsideration on the theory that its counsel's failure to request oral argument on the motion that led to the order subject to the reconsideration motion constituted a "new fact" within the meaning of section 1008, subdivision (a).

Concluding the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion for relief from a judgment

In Mix v. Tumanjan Development Corp. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1318, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 267, an attorney, Terence Mix, filed an action in propria persona against the landlord of the building in which he rented office space.

Holding that there was no "new" evidence even where a party claimed it was precluded from presenting its interpretation of the law, where the law and the interpretation had been presented in the briefs