Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 20STCV19534, Date: 2025-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV19534    Hearing Date: February 10, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On May 21, 2020, Arno Patrick Kuiguoa (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Adam Michael Sacks and the Law Offices of Adam Michael Sacks (“Defendant”), alleging (1) professional negligence; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; and (3) promissory fraud.

            Defendant Sacks is an attorney who represented Plaintiff in a family law matter. Plaintiff also approached Defendant with a request to represent him in an employment law matter. This action arises from Defendant’s alleged failure to appear at an 8-day hearing in the employment matter. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant orally promised to provide legal representation in exchange for monetary payment. Plaintiff alleges that he paid Defendant the money, but Defendant failed to appear at the hearing.

            On March 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement and Request for Dismissal, which was granted.

            On January 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to set aside the dismissal. Defendant filed his opposition on January 8, 2025.

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).)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff moves to vacate the dismissal on the grounds that the settlement was entered into without his knowledge or consent. However, the Notice of Settlement and Request for Dismissal were filed by Plaintiff’s attorney of record, Michael Labrum. Plaintiff presents no credible evidence that this was done without his consent.

            Moreover, a motion under section 473(b) “shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b).) This time limit “applies inflexibly” and reflects a policy favoring “the finality of judgments.” (Arambula v. Union Carbide Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 333, 344.) “[A] court has no authority under section 473, subdivision (b), to excuse a party’s noncompliance with the six-month time limit.” (Id. at p. 345.) Plaintiff filed this motion three years after the dismissal.

            Plaintiff claims that he trusted his attorney’s representation that the judgment was final and could not be reversed, even though the six-month deadline had not passed at the time. Plaintiff’s issues with his prior attorney regarding the settlement and dismissal do not affect the finality of the judgment. The six-month deadline, which “applies inflexibly,” has long passed. The judgment is final.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to set aside dismissal is DENIED.