## Facts

- Former employees Philip Le Francois and Eric Herald sued Duet Technologies, Inc. and three corporate officers for misrepresentation and related claims based on alleged false promises and misrepresentations.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment (or summary adjudication); the trial court denied the motion, finding triable issues of material fact.
- Over a year later, the individual officer defendants filed a second summary judgment motion on essentially the same grounds and evidentiary showing as the first.
- Plaintiffs opposed, arguing the renewed motion was barred by Code of Civil Procedure §§ 437c(f)(2) and 1008 because it was not based on new or different facts, circumstances, or law.
- The renewed motion was transferred to a different judge, who granted summary judgment for the individual defendants and entered judgment.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding the renewed motion violated §§ 437c(f)(2) and 1008 but holding the trial court retained inherent authority to grant it even without new facts or law.
- The California Supreme Court reviewed to clarify the relationship between the statutory limits on renewed motions and a court’s authority to reconsider interim rulings.

## Issues

1. Whether Code of Civil Procedure §§ 437c(f)(2) and 1008 bar a trial court from revisiting a prior interim order denying summary judgment when a party’s renewed motion is not based on new facts or law.
2. Whether, and under what conditions, a trial court may reconsider and change its own interim rulings notwithstanding statutory restrictions on party-initiated reconsideration.

## Decision

- The court held that §§ 437c(f)(2) and 1008 prohibit parties from filing renewed summary judgment (or reconsideration) motions absent new or different facts, circumstances, or law.
- The court construed the statutes not to limit a court’s inherent authority to reconsider and change its own interim orders on the court’s own motion.
- A trial court may revisit an interim ruling if it gives notice that it is considering doing so and provides a reasonable opportunity for the parties to be heard.
- Interpreted in this manner, the statutory scheme is constitutional and does not violate separation of powers.

## Legal Principles

- Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(f)(2) restricts successive summary judgment or summary adjudication motions on issues previously raised and denied, generally allowing a renewed effort only via reconsideration procedures.
- Code of Civil Procedure § 1008 restricts party-initiated reconsideration to situations involving new or different facts, circumstances, or law.
- Courts retain inherent authority to correct legal error in nonfinal (interim) rulings, including prior denials of summary judgment, independent of party compliance with § 1008.
- Before reconsidering an interim order on its own motion, the court must provide notice and a reasonable opportunity to litigate the reconsideration question.

## Conclusion

The California Supreme Court held that while litigants cannot repeatedly refile summary judgment motions without a statutory showing of new or different facts, circumstances, or law, trial courts may still reconsider and change their own interim rulings on their own initiative, so long as the parties receive notice and a fair chance to be heard.


Le Francois v. Goel, 35 Cal. 4th 1094 (Cal. 2005)