Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California

It would be a motion for reconsideration. They have very strict time limits and MUST be based on new law having been issued after the original hearing, or new evidence that you can PROVE could not possibly have been available at the original hearing. The court must deny a motion for reconsideration that does not present one of those situations, and your remedy is an appeal rather than a motion.

I agree with Mr. McCormick. It would be called a Motion for Reconsideration. Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 governs the procedure, and I suggest you familiarize yourself with it. The courts view them as whiney "but, your honor" type nuisances. The statute gives the court the authority to sanction you if you violate the procedural rules.

I agree with Mr. McCormick, except for one detail. You would not have to prove that submitting the evidence the first time would have been literally impossible. Instead, you would need to show that blaming you for its absence would not be reasonable. (For example, if you had the evidence all along but it only became relevant due to something that was said at the hearing.) That's still a hard standard to meet, but not as hard as proving actual impossibility.