Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Mayfair Monarch Holdings, LLC 

 

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Steven Marrs and Courtney Hazlett 

 

BACKGROUND 

This is an unlawful detainer action.  Plaintiff Mayfair Monarch Holdings LLC is the Landlord and Defendant Steven Marrs is the Tenant for premises located at 5825 W. Seaglass Cirle, Playa Vista, California (the “Premises”).   

In May 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel notified the Court that the parties reached a settlement, and the Court set an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) re: Dismissal (Settlement) for June 13, 2023.  (Ransom Decl. ¶6.)   

On or before May 30, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel contracted COVID-19.  Plaintiff was off work from May 30, 2023 through July 3, 2023.  (Ex. A to Ransom Decl.)  Plaintiff’s firm consists of only two attorneys, and both attorneys were home due to COVID-19.  (Ransom Decl. ¶ 8.)  

On June 13, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear for the OSC, and the Court dismissed the action.  Defendant did not inform the Court that the parties reached agreement to settle this matter, and he was in receipt of a proposed stipulated judgment.     

Upon her return to work, counsel received the court’s notice of dismissal.  (Id. ¶9.)   Plaintiff’s counsel immediately contacted Defendant to ask whether he signed the parties’ stipulated judgment.  However, Defendant refused to sign, as he now relies on the Court’s dismissal order.  (Id. ¶10.)  

This hearing is on Plaintiff’s motion to vacate an order of dismissal of its Complaint.  Plaintiff argues that its motion to vacate should be granted under Code Civ. Proc. 473(b) due to its attorney’s excusable neglect, in failing to appear at the OSC due to illness.  As of the posting of this tentative, no opposition has been filed.           

LEGAL STANDARD 

Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §473(b), both discretionary and mandatory relief is available to parties when a case is dismissed.  Discretionary relief is available under the statute as “the court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.”  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 473(b).)  

Alternatively, mandatory relief is available when “accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.”  (Id.)  The purpose of the attorney affidavit provision is to “relieve the innocent client of the burden of the attorney’s fault, to impose the burden on the erring attorney, and to avoid precipitating more litigation in the form of malpractice suits.”  (Hu v. Fang (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 61, 64.) 

An application for discretionary or mandatory relief must be made no more than six months after entry of the judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding from which relief is sought.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b); English v. IKON Business Solutions (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 130, 143.) 

“[W]hen relief under section 473¿is¿available, there is a strong¿public¿policy¿in¿favor¿of granting relief and allowing the requesting party his or her day in court[.]” (Rappleyea v. Campbell¿(1994) 8 Cal. 4th 975, 981-82.) 

DISCUSSION 

The Court first addresses whether mandatory relief is available for a motion to vacate an order of dismissal where counsel fails to appear for an OSC.  The mandatory relief provision of §473(b) refers to both “default judgment or dismissal”.  The inclusion of “dismissal” by the Legislature was intended to “put plaintiffs whose cases are dismissed for failing to respond to a dismissal motion on the same footing with defendants who are defaulted for failing to respond to an action.”  (Jackson v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 166, 175.).   

However, although the language of the mandatory provision, on its face, affords relief from unspecified ‘dismissals’ caused by attorney neglect, “our courts have, through judicial construction, prevented it from being used indiscriminately by plaintiffs’ attorneys as a ‘perfect escape hatch’ to undo dismissals of civil cases.”  (Nacimiento Regional Water Management Advisory Committee v. Monterey County Water Resources Agency (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 961, 967.)   

Courts have construed the provision as reaching only dismissals that are “procedurally equivalent to a default.”  (Jackson, 32 Cal.App.4th at 174.)  Dismissals that are sufficiently distinct from a default, thereby falling outside the scope of the mandatory provision, include “dismissals for failure to prosecute, dismissals for failure to serve a complaint within three years, dismissals based on running of the statute of limitations and voluntary dismissals entered pursuant to settlement.” (Leader v. Health Industries of America Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 620.)   

This case does not fall within any of the above types of dismissals, and therefore, mandatory relief is available.  The Court grants mandatory relief based on Plaintiff’s counsel’s sworn affidavit that she was sick and off work during the period when the June 13, 2023 OSC was held.  (Ransom Decl. ¶7.)  On these facts and given the liberal policy favoring a resolution of cases on their merits, the Court grants the motion to set aside dismissal.   

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to set aside order of dismissal under Code Civ. Proc. 473(b).  The action is reinstated.  The Court sets a case management conference on October 6, 2023 at 9:00 a.m.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: August 25, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court