Estate of Rosalia Rodriguez Gauna

Case Number

24PR00429

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Tue, 08/12/2025 - 09:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion to Set Aside

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances required.

The following is noted for the Court at the hearing:

On June 20, 2025, Thomas R. Gauna filed a Motion to Set Aside Order Denying Petition for Special Administration.  The moving papers cite Probate Code section 1721(c)(1), CCP section 1008(a), and “Superior Court Rules Chapter Seventeen” for authority to bring the motion.  Since Probate Code section 1721 does not exist, and Superior Court Rules Chapter Seventeen also does not exist, the Motion should be denied for citation to false authority.

In addition to the false authority cited in support of the motion, the merits of the motion pursuant to CCP section 1008 also fail.  Section 1008 requires “new or different facts, circumstances, or law” to have been unknown at the time of the original order. "A motion for reconsideration may only be brought if the party moving for reconsideration can offer 'new or different facts, circumstances, or law' which it could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the time of the prior motion....  A motion for reconsideration will be denied absent a strong showing of diligence."  Forrest v. State Of Cal. Dept. Of Corps.  (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 183, 202, disapproved on other grounds by Shalant v. Girardi (2011) 51 Cal. 4th 1164, 1172.  See also  Baldwin v. Home Sav. of Am. (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 1192, 1199 (noting that 1992 amendment to CCP §1008 tightened diligence requirements).

In this case, the moving party (Thomas R. Gauna) cites to no new fact, circumstance, or law that was not available and known to him at the original hearing on the challenged order. Mr. Gauna’s primary argument is that he was “surprised” by the documents handed to him during the hearing, and did not understand what was in them, in addition to not being able to file something he wanted to file that morning.  The fact remains that Mr. Gauna did not, nor has not proven any fact warranting the removal of the current Personal Representative of the estate, nor a reason to install Mr. Gauna as the successor personal representative of the estate should the current one be removed.

For these reasons, the Court should deny the motion.

Appearances:

The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference.

Meeting ID: 160 543 3416

Passcode: 5053334