Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 20STCV46032, Date: 2023-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV46032    Hearing Date: April 24, 2023    Dept: 28

Plaintiffs Jazmin Torres Novoa and Ashley Gregorio’s Motion to Vacate Entry of Dismissal

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On December 2, 2020, Plaintiffs Jazmin Torres Novoa (“Novoa”) and Ashley Gregorio (“Gregorio”) filed this action against Defendant Franklin Windom (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle.

On November 22, 2022, the Court dismissed this action, without prejudice.

On January 19, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Vacate Dismissal to be heard on April 24, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiffs request the Court vacate dismissal as it was entered due to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s mistake.

LEGAL STANDARD

“Section 473(b) provides for both discretionary and mandatory relief. [Citation.]” (Pagnini v. Union Bank, N.A. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 298, 302.) The discretionary provision grants relief based upon a party or legal representative’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. The discretionary provision states in pertinent part:

“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.”

The mandatory provision states in pertinent part:

“Notwithstanding any other requirements of this section, the 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 (1) resulting default entered by the clerk against his or her client, and which will result in entry of a default judgment, or (2) resulting default judgment or 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. The court shall, whenever relief is granted based on an attorney’s affidavit of fault, direct the attorney to pay reasonable compensatory legal fees and costs to opposing counsel or parties.”

“The purpose of this mandatory relief provision is to alleviate the hardship on parties who lose their day in court due to an inexcusable failure to act by their attorneys. [Citation.]” (Rodriguez v. Brill (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 715, 723, emphasis added.)

CCP §473(b) does not apply setting aside mandatory dismissal entered pursuant to §583.250. (Bernasconi Commercial Real Estate v. St. Joseph's Regional Healthcare System (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1078.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs’ application was filed within 6 months of dismissal.

Plaintiffs’ counsel submitted a declaration stating that counsel inadvertently failed to appear for the January 17, 2023, hearing, as Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to calendar the hearing. As the dismissal was due to attorney’s mistake, Plaintiffs have complied with all requirements for relief. The Court grants the motion.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs Jazmin Torres Novoa and Ashley Gregorio’s Motion to Vacate Entry of Dismissal is GRANTED. Dismissal is vacated.

The Court sets an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to File Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint for May 23, 2023, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.