Judge: Helen Zukin, Case: SC128144, Date: 2023-03-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: SC128144    Hearing Date: March 16, 2023    Dept: 207

Background

 

Plaintiffs Stephen Martin Paull and Tonie Keyton Paull (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action against Jorge Gudino (“Defendant”), Adele Gudino, and Mona Ahmed. Plaintiffs and the Gudinos are owners of adjacent property sharing a property line. This action stems from allegations that Defendants were illegally listing their property for short-term rentals. The parties entered into a settlement agreement and on February 1, 2023, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Complaint and the Gudinos’ Cross-Complaint. Plaintiffs now bring this motion seeking to vacate the dismissal of their Complaint, claiming it was the result of attorney mistake or neglect. Defendant opposes the motion.

 

Legal Standard

 

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §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.” (Id.) 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.)

 

“‘[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…[Citation.]” (Rappleyea v. Campbell¿(1994) 8 Cal. 4th 975, 981-82.)

 

Analysis

 

Plaintiffs seeks to set aside dismissal of the Complaint on the ground that dismissal was entered due to the mistake, inadvertence, or neglect of their counsel. Plaintiffs’ counsel has submitted a declaration explaining the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Complaint when he failed to appear at an Order to Show Cause hearing on February 1, 2023. (Morris Decl. at ¶2.) Counsel explains he intended to appear remotely at the February 1 hearing, but was in Palm Springs celebrating his mother’s birthday and failed to set an alarm on his phone for the hearing. (Id.) While counsel’s declaration contradicts the Court’s February 1, 2023, minute order which indicates the Complaint was dismissed at the request of counsel, the Court accepts counsel’s uncontested statement under penalty of perjury to the contrary.

 

Defendant argues the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ motion, claiming Plaintiffs’ time to bring the case to trial under Code Civ. Proc. § 583.310 et seq. has expired. Plaintiffs argue the time to bring a case to trial is extended during the period of conditional settlement. Ultimately, the Court need not decide whether Plaintiffs’ time to bring the case to trial has expired. Relief under Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b) is mandatory when the moving party establishes, as Plaintiffs have here, that the dismissal in question was the result of attorney error. Further, Code Civ. Proc. § 583.360(a) only allows for dismissal for failure to bring a case to trial “by the court on its own motion or on motion of the defendant, after notice to the parties.” Defendant has not brought a motion under section 583.360(a), and the Court is precluded from dismissing an action pursuant to that section without first giving the parties the opportunity to brief the issue. The granting of Plaintiffs’ instant motion does not deprive Defendant the opportunity to bring a motion to dismiss if he believes Plaintiffs’ time to bring this action to trial has expired.

 

Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the February 1, 2023, dismissal of their Complaint is GRANTED.

 

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal of their Complaint is GRANTED.