Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

This case arises from a car accident.  On August 11, 2021, Plaintiffs Tia Brooks, Maura Brooks and Michael Jacobs-Sierra were at a complete stop when their car was hit by Defendant Matthew Moore.  Plaintiffs claim they sustained numerous and severe injuries as a result of the accident.   

Plaintiffs served Defendant with the Complaint, but Defendant failed to respond.  Default was entered against Defendant on May 8, 2024.   

On May 9, 2024, the Court set an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) for failure to file default judgment for August 9, 2024.  On August 9, 2024, there was no default package submitted, and no declaration filed in response to the OSC.  Accordingly, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice.  

This hearing is on Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate dismissal.  Plaintiffs argue they failed to submit a declaration in response to the OSC due to a calendaring mistake, and they did not submit the default package because they were awaiting receipt of Plaintiffs’ medical records, of which they are now in possession.  There was no opposition filed as of the posting of this tentative ruling.       

LEGAL STANDARD 

Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §473(b), both discretionary and mandatory relief are 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.)  Mandatory relief is available even if counsel’s neglect was inexcusable.  (SJP Limited Partnership v. City of Los Angeles (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 511, 516–517.)   

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.)  Any doubt in applying section 473, subdivision (b), must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief.  (Bonzer v. City of Huntington Park (1993) 20 Cal. App. 4th 1474,¿1477-1478.)  

Where relief is promptly sought and no prejudice would be done to the opposing party, only very slight evidence is required to justify the setting¿aside of a default.  For this reason, orders denying relief under section 473 are carefully scrutinized on appeal. (¿Rappleyea v. Campbell¿(1994) 8 Cal..4th 975, 980;¿Elston v. City of Turlock¿(1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 233.) 

DISCUSSION 

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.)   

Here, the dismissal was not due to any of the items listed above.  Plaintiffs’ counsel represents he failed to file a declaration in response to the OSC hearing, due to the failure of counsel to calendar the deadline.  Counsel has not explained how the failure to calendar occurred.  Notwithstanding, to obtain mandatory relief, Plaintiffs’ counsel need not show that his mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect was excusable.  (Avila v. Chua (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 860, 868-869; see also Nmh Broadway v. Carrillo, 2017 Cal. Super. LEXIS 57900 at *2-*3¿(mandatory relief¿granted even though counsel’s¿calendaring errors¿and other mistakes were inexcusable).)¿         

Given the attorney affidavit of fault and the strong policy favoring a resolution of cases on their merits, the Court grants the motion to vacate dismissal. 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate dismissal.  The action is reinstated.  The Court sets an OSC re default judgment for October 24, 2024 at 9:00 a.m.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: September 20, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court