Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 18STCV08659, Date: 2023-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV08659    Hearing Date: April 10, 2023    Dept: 61

Plaintiff Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions’s Motion for Relief from Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice is GRANTED.

Plaintiff to provide notice.

I.                   MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) states:

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. Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken . . . . Notwithstanding any other requirements of this section, the court shall, whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney's sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, vacate any (1) resulting default entered by the clerk against his or her client, and which will result in entry of a default judgment . . . unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. The court shall, whenever relief is granted based on an attorney's affidavit of fault, direct the attorney to pay reasonable compensatory legal fees and costs to opposing counsel or parties.

Plaintiff Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions, Inc. (Plaintiff) moves for relief against the dismissal without prejudice entered on February 14, 2023, for the failure to appear at an OSC re: entry for default judgment. Plaintiff’s counsel submits a declaration stating that the failure to appear on February 16, 2023, was due to a calendaring error. (Gallego Decl. ¶ 10.) Calendaring errors such as described by Plaintiff here ordinarily fit within the meaning of “excusable neglect.” (See Nilsson v. City of Los Angeles (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 976, 980 [describing how calendaring errors constitute excusable neglect].)

The motion is therefore GRANTED.