Judge Barbara M. Scheper, Case 21STCV43118 2022-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 21STCV43118, Date: 2022-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV43118 Hearing Date: December 12, 2022 Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Lazo, et. al., vs. FCA US, LLC, et. al., Case No. 21STCV43118

Tentative Ruling re: Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Dismissal

Plaintiff Juan Carlos Lazo (Plaintiff) moves for an order setting aside the dismissal entered on November 1, 2022. The motion is granted.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b): “the court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.”

On November 1, 2022, following the nonappearances of both parties at the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal of Settled Case continued to that date, the Court entered an Order of Dismissal dismissing this case.

Plaintiff’s counsel states that he attempted to attend the November 1 hearing using the backup conference phone number provided, but was placed on hold. (Avila Decl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff’s counsel then contacted Defendant’s counsel, who said that they had also been placed on a lengthy hold and had not been admitted to the hearing. (Avila Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.) The parties were not admitted, and after some time counsel found that the Court had entered the Order of Dismissal based on the parties’ nonappearances. (Avila Decl. ¶ 5.) Though the parties have reached a settlement in principle, Plaintiff’s counsel states that some details have not been resolved and so dismissal is not warranted. (Avila Decl. ¶ 11.)

The motion is unopposed.

Counsel has shown “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” justifying relief under Code Civ. Proc. § 473, subd. (b), and the motion has made within six months of the November 1, 2022 order. Accordingly, the motion is granted. The Court sets aside the Order of Dismissal entered on November 1, 2022.