In Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, the trial court granted a number of plaintiff's motions and dismissed defendant's summary judgment motion. (Id. at p. 1498.) Defendant thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration of all the trial court's orders, which the trial court granted. (Ibid.) The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court did not have the power to reconsider its prior rulings because defendant's motion did not meet the prerequisites set forth in section 1008. (Gilberd at pp. 1498-1499.) The court rejected defendant's argument that the fact it had not intended to waive oral argument on the initial motions was a " 'new' fact or circumstance sufficient to satisfy the statute." (Id. at p. 1500.) "While not denigrating the assistance that oral argument can provide to a court, the fact that defendant intended to request that the court entertain oral argument with respect to the initial motions is clearly collateral to the merits of the motions. Again, defendant did not present any facts or authorities relating to the merits of the underlying motion that were not considered by the trial court when it issued its initial orders." (Ibid.) In sum, the lower court granted the plaintiff's petition for relief from the claim-filing requirements of the Government Claims Act. The defendant then filed a motion for reconsideration under section 1008. The motion also sought, in the alternative, relief under section 473, on the ground that the defendant's counsel's failure to request a hearing after the trial court had already issued a tentative ruling in favor of the plaintiff constituted an excusable mistake. The trial court granted reconsideration, denied the plaintiff's petition, and sustained a demurrer to the complaint, without leave to amend. (Gilberd v. AC Transit, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 1498.) The appellate court reversed, holding that the defendant had failed to show any " 'new or different facts, circumstances, or law,' " as section 1008 would require. (Gilberd v. AC Transit, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1499-1500.) The defendant argued that the trial court had properly granted relief under section 473. (Gilberd, at p. 1501.) The appellate court disagreed: "To hold, under the circumstances presented in this case, that the general relief mechanism provided in section 473 could be used to circumvent the jurisdictional requirements for reconsideration found in section 1008 would undermine the intent of the Legislature as specifically expressed in section 1008, subdivision (e): 'No application to reconsider any order ... may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to this section.' Therefore, we decline to so hold." (Ibid.)