Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 22STCV40396, Date: 2024-06-25 Tentative Ruling

This action stems from claims of childhood sexual assault, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff filed the complaint on December 20, 2022, against Defendant Doe Religious Organization 1 (“Doe 1”), Defendant Doe Religious Organization 2 (“Doe 2”), Defendant Doe Church (“Doe Church”) and Defendant Does 4 through 100. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action against Doe 2 on June 14, 2023, and against Doe 1 on November 16, 2023, leaving Doe Church as the sole defendant in this case.

In a Minute Order dated July 6, 2023, the Court noted that Doe Church was served on March 23, 2023, but that it had not filed an answer/response to the complaint. The Court thus ordered Plaintiff to submit a request for entry of default by July 27, 2023.

Plaintiff subsequently filed requests for entry of default on July 27, 2023; August 1, 2023; August 4, 2023; September 26, 2023; November 21, 2023; December 28, 2023; and January 5, 2024. The requests were all rejected by the court clerk for various reasons. During periodic case reviews, the Court ordered Plaintiff to resubmit a request for entry of default for each time Plaintiff’s request for entry of default was rejected.

In a Minute Order dated January 11, 2024, following the clerk’s rejection of Plaintiff’s last request for entry of default filed on January 5, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit another request for entry of default by February 16, 2024. No request for entry of default was filed by Plaintiff on or before said date. Thus, in a Minute Order dated February 23, 2024, the Court scheduled a Non-Appearance Case Review re: Dismissal of Doe Church and Does 4 to 100 for March 22, 2024. On March 22, 2024, there having been no request for entry of default filed by Plaintiff, the Court, on its own motion, ordered the dismissal of the action without prejudice as to Doe Church, et al.

On January 11, 2024, Mattie Wilson, on behalf of Doe Church, filed a Request for Dismissal (Form CIV-110), asking to dismiss the entire action with prejudice. On January 12, 2024, a Notice of Rejection of the Request for Dismissal (Form CIV-110) was issued by the clerk noting that “the case can only be dismissed by the filing party/attorney of record.” On March 22, 2024, an Order of Dismissal with prejudice, pursuant to the motion of Doe Church, was entered.

On March 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed this Motion for Reconsideration, seeking reconsideration of the two Orders for dismissal entered on March 22, 2024.

“When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008(a).)

Plaintiff has not shown that she is entitled to reconsideration of the dismissals based upon CCP Section 1008(a), and on that ground the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

When a motion for reconsideration is not in itself warranted under the statute, however, even absent a change in the law or new facts, the court has the inherent power to reconsider its own interim orders at any time on its own motion. (Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1107; Nieto v. Blue Shield of Calif. Life & Health Ins. Co. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 60, 73.) Here, the Court finds that its March 22, 2024 Orders of dismissal appear to have been entered through inadvertence and/or clerical error. Therefore, the Court on its own motion, vacates these dismissals and reinstates the action against Doe Church. Doe Church has twenty days from the date of this ruling to file a responsive pleading to the Complaint.

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 proved 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.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court