Judge: Helen Zukin, Case: 22SMCP00230, Date: 2022-12-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCP00230    Hearing Date: December 16, 2022    Dept: 207

Background

On May 24, 2022, Petitioners Emily Bloom and Bradley Stonesifer (collectively “Petitioners”) filed the instant Petition for Release of Property from Lien (the “Petition”) against Respondent Synergy Construction (“Respondent”) seeking to release the mechanic’s lien recorded against their real property located at 4256 Campbell Drive in Los Angele, California. On June 7, 2022, the Court set the Petition for hearing on June 27, 2022. Before the hearing on the Petition, the matter was taken off calendar by Petitioners, who subsequently filed a request for dismissal of the action with prejudice, which was entered by the Court. Petitioners now move the Court to set aside the dismissal of the action with prejudice on the basis of mistake and inadvertence so they can instead dismiss the action without prejudice. Petitioners’ motion is unopposed.

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. (C.C.P. § 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.” (Ibid.) Under this statute, 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. (Id.; see also English v. IKON Business Solutions (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 130, 143.)

Analysis

Petitioners initiated this action to seek the release of a mechanic’s lien recorded on Petitioner’s property. Before the hearing on the Petition for Release was heard, it was taken off calendar by Petitioners and Petitioners subsequently filed a request for dismissal of the action with prejudice, which was entered by the Court on October 12, 2022. Petitioners now seek to vacate the dismissal with prejudice to allow Petitioners to instead dismiss the action without prejudice. Petitioners have submitted a declaration of counsel explaining the Petition was taken off calendar because Respondent agreed to remove the mechanic’s lien. (Almaraz Decl. at ¶3.) Counsel further explains the prior request for dismissal filed by Petitioners on October 11 accidentally requested the dismissal be entered with prejudice due to a clerical mistake by his staff which he failed to correct before the request was filed with the Court. (Id. at ¶¶3-9.) Counsel states it was always Petitioners intention to dismiss the action without prejudice. (Id. at ¶3.) Petitioners have attached a copy of the proposed request for dismissal without prejudice which they will file if their request for relief is granted.

The Court finds Petitioners have demonstrated good cause for relief of the entry of dismissal with prejudice on October 12, 2022, due to mistake and inadvertence under Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b). The Court also notes Respondent was served with a copy of Petitioners’ motion and has not objected to or otherwise opposed Petitioners’ request. Accordingly, Petitioners’ motion for relief is GRANTED.

Conclusion

Petitioners’ motion for relief from request for dismissal is GRANTED.