Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV12470, Date: 2024-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV12470    Hearing Date: August 16, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On April 13, 2022, Plaintiffs Dennis Castillo, a minor, and Brenda Alvarez, (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, and Does 1 to 50 for medical negligence. On April 14, 2022, the Court appointed Carlos Castillo as guardian ad litem for Dennis Castillo.

On October 11, 2023, the case was called for trial and there was no appearance by Plaintiffs or service in this case. As a result, the complaint was dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581(b)(3).

On May 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed an expedited minors’ compromise petition for Dennis Castillo, which was rejected because the case was dismissed, and the Court lacked jurisdiction. (See Notice of Rejection, 5/20/24.)

On July 16, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to reinstate the case so the Court may consider and approve the minors’ compromise petition. No opposition has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

“After six months from default, a trial court may still vacate a default on equitable ground even if statutory relief is unavailable.”¿ (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 981.)¿ A party may obtain equitable relief from an entry of dismissal based on an extrinsic mistake when the moving party: (1) has a meritorious case, (2) articulates a satisfactory excuse for not presenting a defense to the original action, and (3) demonstrates diligence in seeking to set aside the dismissal once discovered.¿ (Id. at p. 982.)¿¿ 

¿ 

An extrinsic mistake is broadly defined “. . . to encompass almost any set of extrinsic circumstances which deprive a party of a fair adversary hearing. It does not seem to matter if the particular circumstances qualify as fraudulent or mistaken in the strict sense.”¿(In re Marriage of Park (1980) 27 Cal.3d 337, 342.) An ‘extrinsic’ mistake means a mistake that deprived a party of the opportunity to present a claim or defense while an ‘intrinsic’ mistake is one that goes to the merits of a proceeding.¿ (In re Marriage of Stevenot (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 1051, 1064-1065.)¿¿ 

¿ 

A default cannot be set aside when the complaining party’s negligence contributed to the rise to the fraud or mistake.¿(See Kulchar v. Kulchar (1969) 1 Cal.3d 467, 473-474 [complaining party’s failure to investigate and assemble evidence at trial as grounds for denying equitable relief sought].)¿An extrinsic mistake may result from a disability when the disability renders the party incompetent or incapacitated such that it deprives the party from asserting a claim or defense. (See id. at pp. 471-472.)¿ “For attorney misconduct to support equitable relief from a default judgment due to extrinsic mistake, there must have been ‘neglect of an extreme degree amounting to positive misconduct’ by counsel, rather than mere inexcusable neglect, sufficient to obliterate the attorney-client relationship and thereby preclude any imputation of counsel's neglect to the client. [Citations.] ‘Positive misconduct is found where there is a total failure on the part of counsel to represent his client.’ [Citation.]” (People v. One Parcel of Land (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 579, 584.)

DISCUSSION

            Here, Plaintiffs assert that the parties entered arbitration on April 26, 2022, and continued until November 16, 2023, when the case settled in full. (Stuart Decl.) Plaintiffs’ counsel declares that she was “focused on settling the case in arbitration and inadvertently did not realize that the Court was going to dismiss the case.” (Id.) She further declares that the sole purpose of this case was to appoint a guardian ad litem. Plaintiffs seek to reopen this case solely to file their petition for approval of a minor’s compromise, pursuant to the settlement that occurred in 2023. 

            Although Plaintiffs do not explain why they did not seek to stay the action pending arbitration, why there is no proof of service, why counsel failed to appear for the dates set in this case, or why Plaintiffs delayed in filing this motion when the settlement purportedly was reached in November 2023, the Court will set aside the dismissal in light of Plaintiffs’ representation that the parties have reached a settlement, and because no opposition to this motion has been filed.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court grants the motion to reinstate for the limited purpose of a hearing on a petition for approval of minor’s compromise. Plaintiffs must file and serve the petition within 30 days.

The matter is set for an Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal (Settlement) for October 16, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

Plaintiffs to provide notice and file a proof of service of such.