Quote of the Day - Man is the only animal that laughs and has a state legislature.
Change judges, or ask the Court to reconsider your motion. But wait a minute, CCP 1008 (scroll to bottom) says you have to have new facts, new law or a change in circumstances, otherwise it has to be done within 10 days of the original motion.
Our California Supreme Court says a trial court can reconsider a motion based on its own inherent authority. Sounds a bit like Marbury v. Madison. You know, the legislature told us we had to do it this way, but we like this other way instead.
As I quoted Robert Frost a few days ago, "Isn't it funny that everything the Supreme Court says is right?"
Don't get me wrong here; I'm not complaining. I agree with this decision. It's just that the conclusion of the opinion says it all:
"In this case, the individual defendants filed a new [second] motion for summary judgment ... , which they were not permitted to do. The trial court erred in granting that motion. Plaintiffs argue that this circumstance means that we must order that the case go to trial. We disagree. We merely hold that the court erred in granting an impermissible motion. On remand, nothing prohibits the court from reconsidering its previous ruling on its own motion, a point on which we express no opinion." (Emphasis not in original).
In other words, "you shouldn't have, but nevermind, go right ahead."