lacked jurisdiction rule in California

2025Tejon contends the court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the Center’s motion for reconsideration because it did not present any “new or different facts, circumstances or law” under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. 16 Section 1008 generally governs “reconsideration of court orders whether initiated by a party or the court itself.” (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1499 ; see Kinda v. Carpenter (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1278 [“section 1008 places strict jurisdictional limits on a litigant’s ability to seek reconsideration of a prior ruling”].) A party’s motion for reconsi

2024(People v. Ary (2011) 51 Cal.4th 510, 513 ; see Pate v. Robinson (1966) 383 U.S. 375, 385 .) 7 competency was declared and the criminal proceedings were suspended, the court lacked jurisdiction to rule upon a Faretta motion.

2016Citing Williams v. Superior Court, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th 642 , the court found that “recent case law establishes that representative PAGA claims cannot be split into arbitrable individual PAGA claims and nonarbitrable PAGA representative claims.” The court determined therefore that its September 11, 2012 order compelling arbitration of Judge’s individual PAGA claim was “no longer supported by law.” Rather than ordering the PAGA claims to arbitration as Judge had requested, however, the trial court “sever[ed] and stay[ed] [Judge’s] representative PAGA claims pending the outcome of the individu

2016Citing Williams v. Superior Court, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th 642 , the court found that “recent case law establishes that representative PAGA claims cannot be split into arbitrable individual PAGA claims and nonarbitrable PAGA representative claims.” The court determined therefore that its September 11, 2012 order compelling arbitration of Judge’s individual PAGA claim was “no longer supported by law.” Rather than ordering the PAGA claims to arbitration as Judge had requested, however, the trial court “sever[ed] and stay[ed] [Judge’s] representative PAGA claims pending the outcome of the individu

2015(Hernandez, supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 502 .) Accordingly, given these authorities and the record Sanchez, Sr., has presented, we are unable to "correct[]" the judgment as Sanchez, Sr., requests. 26 To the extent Sanchez, Sr., relies on Gogri, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th 255 , to convince us that because the dismissal of the claim here is with prejudice no other court will have jurisdiction to hear the claim, such an argument is not a basis on which we may grant relief. 31 DISPOSITION We dismiss the appeal by Advanced Medicine and Research Center, Inc., and otherwise affirm the judgments filed Jan

2015(Hernandez, supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 502 .) Accordingly, given these authorities and the record Sanchez, Sr., has presented, we are unable to "correct[]" the judgment as Sanchez, Sr., requests. 26 To the extent Sanchez, Sr., relies on Gogri, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th 255 , to convince us that because the dismissal of the claim here is with prejudice no other court will have jurisdiction to hear the claim, such an argument is not a basis on which we may grant relief. 31 DISPOSITION We dismiss the appeal by Advanced Medicine and Research Center, Inc., and otherwise affirm the judgments filed Jan

1995Thus, the court lacked jurisdiction to rule upon defendant's motion ( ibid. ) and accordingly properly declined to do so.

1986Its conclusions were wrong [in the opinion of a majority of this panel] but there is no basis for annulling its decision by a writ of review.” (Brown Co. v. Appellate Department, supra, 148 Cal.App.3d 891, 904 ; cf. Dvorin v. Appellate Dept. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 648, 650 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 771 , 542 P.2d 1363 ].) The Register makes no claim the court lacked jurisdiction to rule on this petition with respect to the parties or subject matter.