# Le Francois v. Goel

> California Supreme Court · June 10, 2005 · 29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 249

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9782184

## Case

- **Full name:** PHILIP LE FRANCOIS Et Al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. PRABHU GOEL Et Al., Defendants and Respondents
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 10, 2005
- **Citations:** 29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 249; 35 Cal. 4th 1094; 112 P.3d 636
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Kennard
- **Judges:** Chin, Kennard
- **Cited by:** 81 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9782184

## Opinion text

KENNARD, J.,
Concurring and Dissenting.—I agree with the majority’s holding that Code of Civil Procedure sections 437c, subdivision (f)(2), and 1008 prohibit only a party from renewing a motion or moving for reconsideration without new facts or law, and that these provisions do not limit a court’s ability to reconsider and correct error in a prior interim order. I also agree generally with the majority’s analysis in support of that holding.
But I do not agree with the majority’s disposition reversing the Court of Appeal’s judgment, which in turn had affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment. As the majority holds, a trial court may properly reconsider an earlier ruling denying summary judgment and make a new ruling granting summary judgment. Although the trial court here erred insofar as it purported to act on a party’s motion rather than on its own motion, this procedural error does not affect the judgment’s validity. A legally correct ruling will not be reversed on appeal merely because the trial court erred in its reasoning *1110 (People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 972 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 243 , 978 P.2d 1171 ]; D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 19 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 520 P.2d 10 ]), and a trial court’s judgment may not be set aside for procedural error unless the error has resulted in a miscarriage of justice (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13). Because no miscarriage of justice has been demonstrated here, I would affirm.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9782184. Public record. Not legal advice.