Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 19STCV22382, Date: 2023-03-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV22382 Hearing Date: March 14, 2023 Dept: 28
Plaintiff Chutney Berry’s Motion to
Vacate Entry of Dismissal
Having
considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On
June 26, 2019, Plaintiff Chutney Berry (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants
Ruben Blanco (“Blanco”), Juan Mariscal (“Juan”) and Anna Mariscal (“Anna”) for
strict liability and negligence. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to
include Defendant Cary Adams (“Adams”).
On
December 4, 2019, Blanco filed an answer. On March 20, 2020, Adams filed an
answer. On January 8, 2021, the Court dismissed Anna and Juan, with prejudice,
pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.
On
August 19, 2022, the Court dismissed the action, without prejudice.
On
February 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Vacate Dismissal to be heard on
March 14, 2023.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Plaintiff
requests the Court vacate dismissal as it was entered due to Plaintiff’s 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
Plaintiff’s
application was filed within 6 months of dismissal.
Plaintiff’s
counsel submitted a declaration stating that the attorney failed to properly
calendar the trial date, resulting in his failure to appear. As the failure to
appear was due to counsel’s mistake, the Court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff
Chutney Berry’s Motion to Vacate Entry of Dismissal is GRANTED.
The Court sets Trial Setting Conference for April 18, 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.