Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 21STCV18162, Date: 2023-01-30 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

Case Number: 21STCV18162    Hearing Date: January 30, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant City of Los Angeles (“Moving Defendant” or the “City”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs

            The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

            This action arises out of an alleged automobile accident.  The currently operative second amended complaint (the “SAC”) alleges: (1) negligence; (2) product liability; and (3) wrongful death and survival action.

            Moving Defendant’s default was entered on October 17, 2022.  On December 27, 2022, Moving filed a motion to set aside/vacate the default pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 473, subdivision (b) (the “Motion”) on the grounds of mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect.  The Motion alternatively seeks relief on equitable grounds.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

            Moving Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

CCP section 473, subdivision (b) provides that the court may relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, or order or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.  (CCP § 473, subd. (b).)  A party who seeks relief under CCP section 473, subdivision (b) on the basis of mistake or inadvertence of counsel must demonstrate that such mistake, inadvertence, or general neglect was excusable because the negligence of the attorney is imputed to his client and may not be offered by the latter as a basis for relief.  (Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 249, 258.)  In other words, the discretionary relief of CCP section 473 only permits relief from attorney error fairly imputable to the client, i.e., mistakes anyone could have made.  (Id. (legal assistant’s clerical mistake could have been made by anyone and thus was a ground for discretionary relief).)  The law favors a trial on the merits and courts therefore liberally construe section 473.  (Bonzer v. City of Huntington Park (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1477.)  Doubts in applying section 473 are resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default.  (Id. at 1478.) 

Moving Defendant contends that bureaucratic oversight in the City Attorney’s office caused by a staffing shortage and personnel changes led to its failure to timely respond to the SAC.  Moving Defendant’s counsel declares that in 2022, the City Attorney’s General Litigation Division lost several experienced trial attorneys due to death, retirements, and reassignments.  (See Declaration of Anthony M. Miera (“Miera Decl.”) ¶ 18.)  Health issues and attorney absences compounded the City Attorney’s inability to oversee and manage its caseload.  (Miera Decl. ¶ 22.)  

The City was served with the SAC on July 12, 2022 and the SAC was received by an intake attorney on July 13, 2022.  (See Declaration of Margaret Shikibu (“Shikibu Decl.”) ¶ 4.)  Shikibu began experiencing medical issues around this time, and on August 15, 2022, she realized that she had failed to complete the paperwork to have the case assigned to a trial attorney and immediately forwarded the case to a supervisor for the next level of the intake process.  (Shikibu Decl. ¶¶ 9-11.) 

Although Miera received the paperwork prepared by Shikibu on August 18, 2022, he overlooked the email.  (See Miera Decl. ¶ 5.)  At the time, Miera’s mother was in the hospital and he was providing care for his father who has dementia.  (Id.)  Miera realized his oversight when he reviewed the second amended cross-complaint filed by Hyundai Motor Company.  (Miera Decl. ¶ 6.)  Miera then contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel and asked for an extension to file an answer.  (Id.; Exhibit 2.)  Miera thereafter noticed that Plaintiffs had filed an application for entry of default on October 14, 2022 that had been rejected and sent Plaintiffs’ counsel a follow-up email requesting that they not file another application for default.  (Id.)  Miera was not made aware of the City’s subsequently entered default until November 22, 2022.  (See Miera Decl. ¶ 9.)

Plaintiffs argue that Moving Defendant has not established that its mistake, inadvertence, or neglect were reasonable.^[1]  Plaintiffs provide evidence that their counsel contacted the City Attorney’s office six times to notify them about the SAC and the status of the City’s response (and lack thereof).  (See Declaration of Vincent Vallin Bennett (“Bennett Decl.”) ¶¶ 15-20.)  

Miera declares that he did not receive Plaintiffs’ correspondence before he learned of the City’s default.  (See Miera Decl. ¶ 10.) 

Although Plaintiffs’ frustration is understandable, particularly in light of their attempts to confer with Moving Defendant before default was entered, the Court finds that the Motion sets forth sufficient facts to establish that Moving Defendant’s failure to timely answer the SAC was due to inadvertence, mistake or excusable neglect.  The impact of staffing issues on the City Attorney’s ability to manage its caseload and the extenuating circumstances of the attorneys responsible for assigning this case led to the SAC falling through the cracks.  The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion.  Moving Defendant is ordered to refile its answer within five court days. 

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court¿strongly¿encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.¿¿If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to¿SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org¿stating your intention to appear in person.¿ The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.¿ This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

        Dated this 30th day of January 2023