Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(b). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(b). Show all posts

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

Renewing a motion in a California divorce case



Renewing a motion in a California divorce case is the topic of this blog post.   Renewing a motion in California is authorized to the pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(b) and has one very useful advantage compared to a motion for reconsideration in that it is not subject to the 10 day statutory time limitation imposed on motions for reconsideration.  However there is a disadvantage in renewing motion in that they can ONLY by brought by the party who filed the original motion.

Code of Civil Procedure § 1008(b) states in pertinent part that “A party who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or part, or granted conditionally or on terms, may make a subsequent application for the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, in which case it shall be shown by affidavit what application 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.”

A renewal of a motion may be filed in a divorce, legal separation or nullity case in California under the provisions of Family Code § 210 which states that, “Except to the extent that any other statute or rules adopted by the Judicial Council provide applicable rules, the rules of practice and procedure applicable to civil actions generally, including the provisions of Title 3a (commencing with Section 391) of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, apply to, and constitute the rules of practice and procedure in, proceedings under this code.”

Certain requirements must be met in order to successfully renew a motion. The party renewing the motion must make a showing of new or different facts, circumstances or law since the date of the original order that the moving party was not aware of and could not have discovered with reasonable diligence. Failure to comply with the statutory provisions may result in denial of the renewed motion.  

The California Courts of Appeal have stated in several decisions that a ruling on a motion is not res judicata, and a trial court has jurisdiction to consider a renewal of a previous motion.

Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view a portion of a 10 page sample renewal of motion for a California divorce sold by the author that contains brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, a sample declaration and proof of service can use the link shown below.

 
Attorneys or parties who would like to view portions of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation sold by the author of this blog post can use the link shown below.

View over 300 sample legal documents

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation.

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro

You can view sample legal document packages for sale by going to http://www.legaldocspro.com/downloads.aspx

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

Thursday, November 7, 2013

Renewing a motion in California under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(b)

Renewing a motion in California under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(b) is the topic of this blog post.   Renewed motions have a very distinct advantage over motions for reconsideration as they are not subject to the 10 day statutory time limitation imposed on motions for reconsideration.

The main disadvantage of a renewed motion is the fact that it can only by brought by the party who filed the original motion unlike a motion for reconsideration which can be brought by any party affected by an order. 

Renewed motions in California are authorized by and governed by Code of Civil Procedure § 1008(b) which states in pertinent part that “A party who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or part, or granted conditionally or on terms, may make a subsequent application for the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, in which case it shall be shown by affidavit what application 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.”

Note that the party filing the renewed motion must make a showing of new or different facts, circumstances or law since the date of the original order that the moving party was not aware of and could not have discovered with reasonable diligence. Failure to comply with the statutory provisions may result in denial of the renewed motion.

Several decisions of the California Courts of Appeal have stated that a decision on a motion is not res judicata, and a trial court has jurisdiction to consider a renewal of a prior motion.

Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view a portion of a sample renewed motion for California sold by the author that contains brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, a sample declaration and proof of service by mail can use the link shown below.

Sample California renewal of motion
The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents.



If you are in need of assistance with any California or Federal litigation matters, Mr. Burman is available on a freelance basis. Mr. Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information. He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most credit or debit cards.


Visit his website at LegalDocsPro website and his Facebook page at Facebook page

If you enjoy this blog post, tell others about it. They can subscribe to the author’s weekly California legal newsletter by visiting the following link: Subscribe to FREE weekly newsletter

Copyright 2013 Stan Burman. All rights reserved.

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.