Motion Other CLM

Cal. Super. - 2nd Dist.January 14, 2019

123 23561 378401583 562400020067960 113454 21905 89 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, MINUTE ORDER TIME: 08:20:00 AM JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Vincent O'Neill COUNTY OF VENTURA VENTURA DATE: 05/20/2019 DEPT: 41 CLERK: Julie Christie REPORTER/ERM: None CASE NO: 56-2019-00523337-CU-FR-VTA CASE TITLE: Matute vs. Eric Traut Esq CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Fraud EVENT TYPE: Motion - Other (CLM) For Order for Reconsideration of Order/Judgment Deeming Plaintiffs Vexatious Litigants; Declaration of Philip Matutue in Support Thereof Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof; Req for Judicial Notice in Support Thereof [Seperately f MOVING PARTY: Rowena Matute CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other For Order for Reconsideration of Order/Judgment Deeming Plaintiffs Vexatious Litigants; Declaration of Philip Matutue in Support Thereof Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof; Req for Judicial Notice in Support Thereof [Seperately f, 04/05/2019 EVENT TYPE: Motion - Other (CLM) For Order for Reconsideration of Order/Judgment Deeming Plaintiffs Vexatious Litigants; Declaration of Philip Matutue in Support Thereof Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof; Req for Judicial Notice in Support Thereof [Seperately f MOVING PARTY: Philip Matute CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other For Order for Reconsideration of Order/Judgment Deeming Plaintiffs Vexatious Litigants; Declaration of Philip Matutue in Support Thereof Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof; Req for Judicial Notice in Support Thereof [Seperately f, 04/05/2019 STOLO APPEARANCES STOLO Philip Matute, self represented Plaintiff, present. Pamela S. Liosi-Traut for Eric Traut Esq, counsel, present for Defendant(s) telephonically. Robert A. Hyatt for JP Morgan Chase Bank, counsel, present for Defendant(s) telephonically. Stolo Appearances are as noted above.There is no appearance by Plaintiff, Rowena Matute. At At 8:47 a.m., court convenes in this matter with all parties present as previously indicated. The Court states his tentative ruling. Matter submitted to the Court with argument. The Court finds/orders: VEN-FNR-10.03 MINUTE ORDER DATE: 05/20/2019 Page 1 DEPT: 41 CASE TITLE: Matute vs. Eric Traut Esq CASE NO: 56-2019-00523337-CU-FR-VTA The Court's tentative is adopted as the Court's ruling. Ruling on Plaintiff Philip Matute and plaintiff Rowena Matute's motions for reconsideration of order/judgment deeming plaintiffs vexatious litigants: The court denies Plaintiff Philip Matute and plaintiff Rowena Matute's motions for reconsideration of order/judgment deeming plaintiffs vexatious litigants. Initially the court notes that the motions are not accompanied by the required proof of service. As to the merits, Plaintiffs have not provided any "new or different facts, circumstances, or law" as required by CCP §1008 which would warrant reconsideration. "It has long been the view that a party seeking reconsideration of a prior order based on 'new or different facts' must provide a satisfactory explanation for failing to present the evidence sooner." California Correctional Peace Officers Ass'n v Virga (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 30. Notice to be given by Ms. Pamela S. Liosi-Traut. STOLO VEN-FNR-10.03 MINUTE ORDER DATE: 05/20/2019 Page 2 DEPT: 41