Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV13541, Date: 2025-03-17 Tentative Ruling
Please notify Department 52 via email at smcdept52@lacourt.org and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.
Case Number: 23STCV13541 Hearing Date: March 17, 2025 Dept: 52
Plaintiff
Juan Moore’s Motion to Set Aside Dismissal Under Code of Civil Procedure
Section 473(b) and Reinstate Case
On
October 24, 2024, at 9:30 a.m., the court commenced a non-jury trial. Plaintiff Juan Moore’s attorney, Olivia
Avelino, appeared for plaintiff. When
the court asked Avelino to call her first witness, she advised the court she
had none. Defendant then moved to
dismiss the action. The court granted
the motion and dismissed the action without prejudice. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 581, subd. (b)(5)
[action may be dismissed “when either party fails to appear on the trial”]; see
also Code Civ. Proc., § 631.8.)
Plaintiff
now moves to vacate or set aside that order under Code of Civil Procedure 473,
subdivision (b). Plaintiff’s motion is
based on Avelino’s declaration. Avelino
testified: “When I appeared for trial, I erroneously informed the Court that
Plaintiff was not available for trial.
[¶] However, due to mistake, inadvertence and excusable neglect, I
failed to inform the Court that Plaintiff was available for trial on October
24, 2024, but needed time to get to the courthouse.” (2/18/25 Avelino Decl., ¶¶ 5, 6, italics
added.)
Avelino
misstates the facts. At no time during
the trial did Avelino inform the court that plaintiff was “not available for
trial.” Indeed, Avelino did not say
anything about plaintiff or make any statements from which the court could
infer that plaintiff knew about the trial and “needed time to get to the
courthouse.”
“An
attorney is an officer of the court and owes the court a duty of candor.” (Levine v. Berschneider (2020) 56
Cal.App.5th 916, 921.) Avelino is not
being candid with the court.
Avelino’s
conclusory statements do not explain the full story. She does not, for example, state whether she
or anyone at her law firm communicated with plaintiff on October 24, 2024,
prior to trial. She does not even claim
she had any reason to believe plaintiff was coming to the courthouse on that
day. Indeed, there is no evidence in the
record that at 9:30 a.m. on October 24, 2024, plaintiff even knew there was a
trial in his case. Plaintiff could have
easily provided such evidence by filing a declaration stating these basic
facts.
Nonetheless,
the court must grant relief from the dismissal.
Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) provides in
relevant part: “[T]he court shall, whenever an application for relief is made
no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is
accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, vacate any … resulting dismissal entered
against his or her client, unless the court finds that the default or dismissal
was not in fact caused by the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
neglect.” These “mandatory relief
provisions … require the court to grant relief if the attorney admits
neglect, even if the neglect was inexcusable.” (Metropolitan Service Corp. v. Casa de
Palms, Ltd. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1487.)
Avelino
attests that her mistake resulted in the dismissal. Though her declaration is less than
forthcoming, the record adequately shows that plaintiff’s counsel’s neglect or
mistake caused the dismissal. The court
finds the mistake or neglect was not excusable, but relief is mandatory under
Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b).
Disposition
Plaintiff
Juan Moore’s motion to set aside dismissal is granted. The court hereby vacates the dismissal
of this action. The court hereby sets
the case for jury trial on May 21, 2025, at 10:00 a.m.