Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 24STCV08550, Date: 2025-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV08550    Hearing Date: March 21, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On April 4, 2024, Plaintiff Yung Chung filed this unlawful detainer action against Defendant Dave Stringer.

            On December 5, 2024, the Court held an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement), and Plaintiff did not appear. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the case pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581(b)(1).

            On February 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to set aside the dismissal. 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).) Because the law favors resolution on the merits, doubts are resolved in favor of the party requesting relief, and only “slight evidence” is needed to justify relief. (Caldwell v. Methodist Hospital (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1521, 1524.) “[C]ourts have often granted relief pursuant to the discretionary relief provision of section 473 if no prejudice to the opposing party will ensue.” (Comunidad en Accion v. Los Angeles City Council (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1132-33.)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff’s counsel did not appear for the OSC due to a medical issue. (Kalter Decl. ¶ 4.) As a result, Plaintiff’s counsel was unable to inform the Court that the parties had not settled and to request a trial. (Ibid.) This constitutes sufficient cause to set aside the dismissal. (See Caldwell, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at p. 1524 [only “slight evidence” required].) Defendant articulates no prejudice as a result of setting aside the dismissal. (See Communidad en Accion, supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1132-33 [relief ordinarily granted where no prejudice is shown].) Given the policy in favor of resolution on the merits, the Court finds that vacating the dismissal is warranted.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to set aside dismissal is GRANTED.