Q: California motion for reconsideration jurisdiction and relevant precedents.
In California Superior Court, I filed a motion for reconsideration before the judgment was entered, and it's currently scheduled on the court's calendar. The motion is based on new facts that resulted in a change in the law. As a pro se party, I am curious about whether the court's decision to keep the hearing on the calendar implies it has jurisdiction over the motion. I’m concerned because I believe the court would typically vacate a hearing if it lacked jurisdiction. I have noticed that attorneys sometimes reference precedents that aren't relevant to the specific context, so I'm particularly interested in relevant and specific precedents or procedures that accurately define the court's jurisdiction over motions like mine. Could you provide guidance on California Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(e) and any pertinent precedents?
Lawyers, want to be a Justia Connect Pro too? Learn more ›
- California
- (916) 704-3009
- View Profile
- Answered
A:
When you file a motion for reconsideration before judgment is entered, the court generally maintains jurisdiction to hear and rule on that motion. Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1008(e), the court explicitly retains jurisdiction to reconsider its own orders before final judgment. The fact that your hearing is still on calendar strongly suggests the court views the motion as properly filed and within its authority to decide.
Courts usually vacate hearings when they lack jurisdiction or believe a motion is procedurally improper. Since your hearing remains scheduled, it's a strong indicator that the court acknowledges its power to rule under § 1008. You mentioned that the motion is based on new facts and a change in the law—both of which are recognized grounds for reconsideration under § 1008(a), provided they are supported by a declaration explaining why the facts or law were not presented earlier.
For relevant precedent, *Gilberd v. AC Transit* (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494 supports the idea that courts retain discretion over motions filed before final judgment. Additionally, *In re Marriage of Barthold* (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1301 explains that a court has the power to reconsider rulings when material changes occur prior to judgment. You’re right to question the misuse of precedent—case law should apply to your specific procedural posture, and in your case, the court appears to be proceeding in a way that aligns with established authority.
Justia Ask A Lawyer is a forum for consumers to get free answers to basic legal questions. Any information sent through Justia Ask A Lawyer is not secure and is done so on a non-confidential basis only.
The use of this website to ask questions or receive answers does not create an attorney–client relationship between Justia and you, or between any attorney who receives your information or responds to your questions and you, nor is it intended to create such a relationship. Additionally, no responses on this forum constitute legal advice, which must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case. You should not act upon information provided in Justia Ask A Lawyer without seeking professional counsel from an attorney admitted or authorized to practice in your jurisdiction. Justia assumes no responsibility to any person who relies on information contained on or received through this site and disclaims all liability in respect to such information.
Justia cannot guarantee that the information on this website (including any legal information provided by an attorney through this service) is accurate, complete, or up-to-date. While we intend to make every attempt to keep the information on this site current, the owners of and contributors to this site make no claims, promises, or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to from this site.
