California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Benthin v. Emeritus Corp., A141385 (Cal. App. 2015):
In the matter before us, the purported "new" fact was that the power of attorney was valid because there was, indeed, a notarization. The issue, therefore, was whether Emeritus provided a satisfactory explanation for failing to present the notarized copy in connection with its original petition to compel arbitration. (See Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690 [requirement of a satisfactory explanation is synonymous with "a strict requirement of diligence"].)
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.