Motion for reconsideration in California: 10 days, an affidavit, and something genuinely new

California is unusual in legislating reconsideration. Most systems leave it to the court's inherent power. CCP 1008(e) does the opposite:

This section specifies the court's jurisdiction with regard to applications for reconsideration of its orders and renewals of previous motions … No application to reconsider any order or for the renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to this section.

That sentence is why the mechanics matter so much. A motion that does not comply is not a weak motion; it is one the court is told not to consider.

Ten days, and what has to be in it

CCP 1008(a):

When an application for an order has been made … and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order.

Four requirements in one sentence:

1. Ten days from service of written notice of entry — not from the ruling, not from the hearing.
2. New or different facts, circumstances, or law. Re-argument is not reconsideration.
3. The same judge or court that made the order.
4. Any party affected may bring it — not only the party who lost the original motion.

And an affidavit. The second sentence requires the moving party to "state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown."

Four contents, and all four are required. A declaration that recites only the new evidence, without the procedural history, does not satisfy the statute. This is the most common defect in reconsideration motions and the easiest to avoid.

Ten days to file, sixteen court days of notice

New practitioners hit an apparent contradiction here. CCP 1008(a) gives 10 days. CCP 1005(b) requires that "all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing."

There is no conflict, because the two govern different things. The 10 days is the deadline for making the application. The 16 court days set how far out the hearing must be. You file inside 10 days and reserve a hearing date at least 16 court days later.

The CCP 1005(b) extensions, which apply to service by mail and are frequently miscounted:

Opposition is due at least nine court days before the hearing; reply at least five court days. Under CCP 1005(c), opposition and reply papers must be served by a method reasonably calculated to deliver by the close of the next business day.

And note what CCP 1005(b) says at the end: CCP 1013 does not apply to a notice of motion, opposing papers or reply papers governed by the section. The mail extension is the one built into CCP 1005(b), not a second one on top.

What "new or different" means, and one thing it doesn't

CCP 1008(f) closes a specific argument:

For the purposes of this section, an alleged new or different law shall not include a later enacted statute without a retroactive application.

A statute passed after the order, that does not apply retroactively, is not new law for reconsideration purposes. It may change the outcome going forward; it does not reopen the ruling.

The statute does not define "new or different facts" beyond requiring the affidavit to identify them. What the text does make clear is that the facts must be new or different — not newly emphasized.

Renewing your own motion — CCP 1008(b)

This is a separate route, and it is often the better one.

A party who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or part, or granted conditionally or on terms, may make a subsequent application for the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, in which case it shall be shown by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.

Compare it with subdivision (a):

The absence of a stated deadline in subdivision (b) is the practical difference. A party who has missed the 10 days on its own denied motion, and now has genuinely new evidence, is looking at a renewed motion rather than a reconsideration motion.

Both require the same affidavit. Neither works without something new.

The court's own motion — CCP 1008(c)

If a court at any time determines that there has been a change of law that warrants it to reconsider a prior order it entered, it may do so on its own motion and enter a different order.

No deadline, no application, and no party required. The trigger is narrower than a party's — a change of law, not new facts. A party who is out of time can bring a change of law to the court's attention, but the decision to act on it is the court's.

Sanctions and appealability

CCP 1008(d): "A violation of this section may be punished as a contempt and with sanctions as allowed by Section 128.7. In addition, an order made contrary to this section may be revoked by the judge or commissioner who made it, or vacated by a judge of the court in which the action is pending."

Reconsideration is not a free shot. A motion that simply re-argues the original one is a violation of a statute with a sanctions provision attached.

CCP 1008(g): an order denying a motion for reconsideration under subdivision (a) "is not separately appealable. However, if the order that was the subject of a motion for reconsideration is appealable, the denial of the motion for reconsideration is reviewable as part of an appeal from that order."

So the denial is not its own appeal, but it does not disappear either. It rides along with the appeal from the underlying order, if that order can be appealed.

CCP 1008(h): the section applies to all applications for interim orders. Read with subdivision (e), which covers orders "whether … interim or final," CCP 1008 governs the whole field.

If what you want is to undo a judgment

Reconsideration under CCP 1008 addresses orders. Once judgment is entered, three other routes exist, each with its own clock. Choosing the wrong one is how post-judgment deadlines get missed.

New trial — CCP 657, 659, 659a, 660

Seven grounds — CCP 657: irregularity in the proceedings or abuse of discretion preventing a fair trial; misconduct of the jury; accident or surprise ordinary prudence could not have guarded against; newly discovered evidence; excessive or inadequate damages; insufficiency of the evidence, or a decision against law; and error in law occurring at the trial and excepted to.

The deadline — CCP 659(a): a notice of intention to move for a new trial, designating the grounds and stating whether the motion will be made on affidavits or the minutes, filed and served either:

• after the decision is rendered and before entry of judgment; or
• within 15 days of service of notice of entry of judgment by the clerk under CCP 664.5 or by any party, or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is earliest.

Once the first party files a notice of intention, each other party has 15 days from service of that notice to file its own.

And the deadline cannot be extended — CCP 659(b): those times "shall not be extended by order or stipulation or by those provisions of Section 1013 that extend the time for exercising a right … where service is by mail."

That is as absolute as a California deadline gets. No stipulation, no court order, no mailbox rule.

Briefing — CCP 659a: the moving party serves and files its brief, affidavits and supporting documents within 10 days of filing the notice; opposing parties have 10 days after that service; the moving party has five days to reply. A judge may extend these for good cause shown by affidavit, or on written stipulation, by no more than 10 additional days.

The 75-day cliff — CCP 660(c): the court's power to rule "shall expire 75 days" after the clerk mails notice of entry under CCP 664.5, or 75 days after service on the moving party of written notice of entry, whichever is earlier — or, if no such notice was given, 75 days after the first notice of intention was filed.

If the motion is not determined within the 75-day period … the effect shall be a denial of the motion without further order of the court.

A motion is not "determined" until an order is entered in the permanent minutes or signed and filed. A minute order counts even if it directs that a written order be prepared.

Seventy-five days is not a target; it is a jurisdictional wall. A new trial motion that has not been ruled on by day 75 has been denied.

Precedence — CCP 660(b): hearing and determination of a new trial motion takes precedence over all other matters except criminal cases, probate and cases actually on trial, and the court has a duty to determine it "at the earliest possible moment."

What CCP 657 requires of the order. When a new trial is granted, the court "shall specify the ground or grounds upon which it is granted and the court's reason or reasons" for each. If the order lacks the specification of reasons, the court must prepare, sign and file it within 10 days. And the statute forbids the court from directing a party's attorney to prepare either the order or the specification.

Two grounds get special treatment. A new trial "shall not be granted upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence … nor upon the ground of excessive or inadequate damages, unless after weighing the evidence the court is convinced from the entire record … that the court or jury clearly should have reached a different verdict or decision." And on appeal, an order granting a new trial on either of those grounds is affirmed only if the ground is stated in the order itself.

Motion to vacate the judgment — CCP 663 and 663a

A narrower and more surgical tool. CCP 663 allows a judgment based on a decision by the court or a special verdict to be set aside and a different judgment entered, for either of two causes materially affecting substantial rights and entitling the party to a different judgment:

1. an incorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision, not consistent with or not supported by the facts — in which case the statement of decision is amended and corrected when the judgment is set aside;
2. a judgment or decree not consistent with or not supported by the special verdict.

This is not a re-weighing of evidence. It is the motion for the case where the facts as found do not support the judgment as entered.

The mechanics track the new trial motion. CCP 663a requires a notice of intention specifying the particulars, filed either before entry of judgment or within 15 days of notice of entry or 180 days after entry, whichever is earliest. CCP 1013's mail extension does not apply. Briefing follows CCP 659a and the hearing is set as under CCP 660. The court's power expires after 75 days, with the same denial-by-operation-of-law consequence.

One difference worth noting: under CCP 663a(e), an order granting the motion "may be reviewed on appeal in the same manner as a special order made after final judgment."

Relief from a judgment — CCP 473

Where the problem is your own mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect rather than an error by the court, CCP 473(b) is the route, on a six-month clock. The guide on setting aside a California default covers it.

Choosing among them

How California compares

A short checklist

1. Find the date written notice of entry was served. Everything counts from there, not from the hearing.
2. Ten days to file the reconsideration application; reserve a hearing at least 16 court days out, plus any CCP 1005(b) service extension.
3. Write the affidavit with all four contents — what was applied for, when, to which judge, what was ordered, and what is new.
4. Ask whether you have something genuinely new. If not, CCP 1008(d) makes re-argument sanctionable.
5. If it was your motion that was denied, look at CCP 1008(b) — no stated deadline, and the same affidavit.
6. If judgment has been entered, stop and pick the right vehicle. New trial, motion to vacate, and CCP 473 relief run on different clocks.
7. Calendar the 75-day cliff on any new trial or CCP 663 motion. Silence on day 76 is a denial.
8. Do not count on a mail extension. CCP 659(b) and 663a(c) exclude CCP 1013 outright, and CCP 1005(b) supplies its own.

Where these sections live

• CCP 128.7 — Signature; sanctions
• CCP 473 — Relief from judgment, order or proceeding
• CCP 657 — Grounds for a new trial
• CCP 659 — Notice of intention to move for a new trial
• CCP 659a — Briefing on a new trial motion
• CCP 660 — Hearing; 75-day limit on the court's power
• CCP 663 — Motion to set aside and vacate a judgment
• CCP 663a — Notice, timing and determination
• CCP 1005 — Notice periods for motions
• CCP 1008 — Reconsideration and renewal of motions
• CCP 1013 — Service by mail; extension of time

This page explains what the Code says. It isn't legal advice, and appellate deadlines are governed by the California Rules of Court, which this site doesn't reproduce — a post-judgment motion can change them.