Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 20STCV06041, Date: 2022-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV06041    Hearing Date: November 21, 2022    Dept: 32

 

SARAH LAZOW, et al.,

                        Plaintiffs,

            v.

 

STACY JOINER,

                        Defendant.

 

  Case No.:  20STCV06041

  Hearing Date:  November 21, 2022

 

     [TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to reinstate plaintiff

 

 

BACKGROUND

            On February 13, 2020, Plaintiffs Sarah Lazow and Marada Enterprises, LLC filed this action against Defendant Stacy Joiner. Lazow is the owner of Marada Enterprises. The lawsuit arises from alleged misconducted by Defendant while she worked for Plaintiffs and continued harassment after she was fired.

            Plaintiffs’ counsel withdrew, and on July 15, 2021, the Court struck the complaint of Marada Enterprises because it was a corporation unrepresented by counsel. Lazow subsequently retained another attorney, who later agreed to also represent Marada. Now that Marada has counsel, Plaintiffs move to set aside the dismissal and reinstate Marada as a plaintiff. Defendant has not filed an opposition.

LEGAL STANDARD

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b).) “The law favors judgments based on the merits, not procedural missteps. Our Supreme Court has repeatedly reminded us that in this area doubts must be resolved in favor of relief, with an order denying relief scrutinized more carefully than an order granting it.” (Lasalle v. Vogel (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 127, 134.)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff Lazow avers that her prior counsel did not inform her that the corporation must be separately represented by counsel. (Lazow Decl. ¶ 6.) After Lazow’s counsel withdrew, she was left without proper advice and did not realize that her company could be dismissed. (Id., ¶¶ 9-11.) Because there is no opposition, and the law favors resolution on the merits, this constitutes sufficient cause to set aside the dismissal.

CONCLUSION

            The motion to reinstate Marada Enterprises, LLC as a Plaintiff is GRANTED. The dismissal is set aside.