Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV07973, Date: 2022-10-26 Tentative Ruling
All parties are
urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to
see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If
you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in
advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather
than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include
the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject
line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the
hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and
whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant,
cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be
advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the
hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the
matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the
argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in
the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.
If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT
WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to
argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent
authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative
ruling as the order of the court.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of
your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request
the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the
hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 20STCV07973 Hearing Date: October 26, 2022 Dept: 28
Plaintiffs Jose E. Martinez, Joselin Delgado Perales, Abigail Martinez and Elias Martinez’s Motion to Vacate Entry of Dismissal
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On February 27, 2020, Plaintiffs Jose E. Martinez (“Martinez”), Joselin Delgado Perales (“Perales”), Abigail Martinez (“Abigail”) and Elias Martinez (“Elias”) filed this action against Defendants Sione Folau (“Folau”), Elvis Latua Mufua (“Mufua”) for motor vehicle negligence and negligence per se.
On July 17, 2020, the Court dismissed Folau, with prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiffs’ request.
On January 27, 2021, the clerk entered default against Mufua.
On June 29, 2022, the Court dismissed the entire action, without prejudice.
On September 26, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Vacate Dismissal to be heard on October 12, 2022.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Plaintiffs request 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 handling attorney improperly calendared the hearing for the wrong date. As the failure to appear was due to the firm’s mistake, the Court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs Jose E. Martinez, Joselin Delgado Perales, Abigail Martinez and Elias Martinez’s Motion to Vacate Entry of Dismissal is GRANTED.
The Court sets a hearing on an Order to Show Cause why the matter should not be dismissed on account of Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to resubmit the default judgment packet on November 28, 2022, 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.