California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Spector v. Spector (In re Spector), 233 Cal.Rptr.3d 855, 24 Cal.App.5th 201 (Cal. App. 2018):
The court found Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f)(2), "can easily be so interpreted" because "that subdivision merely states that a party may not make a motion that violates its provisions." ( Le Francois v. Goel , supra , 35 Cal.4th at p. 1105, 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 249, 112 P.3d 636.) "It says nothing limiting the court's ability to act." ( Ibid . ) The "question w[as] a bit more complex regarding [Code of Civil Procedure] section 1008," because the language of "the statute and its legislative history suggest that it has a broader meaning and does restrict the court's authority to act on its own." ( Ibid . ) After weeding through the complexities, including the legislative intent, the court concluded both statutes "limit the parties' ability to file repetitive motions but do not limit the court's ability, on its own motion, to reconsider its prior interim orders so it may correct its own errors." ( Id . at p. 1107, 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 249, 112 P.3d 636.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.