 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cassidy v. Gaiser5/3/2005
re section 1008, subdivision (b). They contended defendants should be estopped from asserting the statute of limitations as a bar to the wrongful death action by application of the doctrine of equitable tolling. They claimed that subsequent to the hearing on the first motion, they "discovered" the applicability of equitable tolling. Their renewed motion was "based on the new legal theory of equitable tolling."
In presenting new law on a motion for reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, a party must provide a satisfactory explanation for its failure to present this information earlier. (Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1198-1201.) It is not sufficient to claim that the moving party has just now found the applicable law. (Id. at pp. 1200-1201.) Plaintiffs' explanation was less than satisfactory; they claimed only that they did not have sufficient time to discover the applicability of equitable tolling when their motion was initially presented.
Absent a satisfactory reason for plaintiffs' failure to raise equitable tolling in the initial motion for leave to amend, the trial court did not err in denying the renewed motion.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
SCOTLAND, P.J.
ROBIE, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|