Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 24STCV08316, Date: 2025-04-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV08316 Hearing Date: April 22, 2025 Dept: 56
SUPERIOR
COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR
THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
F.E. DISTRIBUTION, INC., a Texas
Corporation dba FORTUNE ENERGY, Plaintiff, vs. HERITAGE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC, a
California corporation dba HERITAGE SOLAR; KLAYTON COLE MARCHANT; DANIEL
ISBELL; and DOES 1 to 15,
Defendants.
|
|
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF DISMISSAL Date: April 22, 2025 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 |
MOVING
PARTY: Plaintiff F.E. Distribution, Inc., a Texas Corporation dba Fortune
Energy (“Plaintiff”)
RESPONDING
PARTY: None
The Court has considered the moving
papers. No opposition has been filed. Any opposition was required to have been
filed by April 9, 2025. (Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”), § 1005, subd. (b)
[opposition must be filed at least nine court days prior to the hearing].)
BACKGROUND
On April 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint
(the “Complaint”) against Defendants Heritage Construction Services Inc.,
Klayton Cole Marchant, Daniel Isbell, and Does 1 through 15 (collectively,
“Defendants”) for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Open Book Account; (3) Account
Stated; and (4) Quantum Valebant.
On February 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed
the instant motion to vacate dismissal (the “Motion”). The Motion is unopposed.
DISCUSSION
CCP section 473 subdivision (b) provides
for both discretionary and mandatory relief from a judgment, dismissal, and/or
order or other proceeding taken against a party through his or her mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (CCP, § 473, subd. (b) [mandatory
relief more narrowly targeted to defaults, default judgments, and dismissals]; Pagnini
v. Union Bank, N.A. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 298, 302.)
“A motion for relief under section 473 is
addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and an appellate court
will not interfere unless there is a clear showing of an abuse. The statute is
remedial and should be liberally applied to carry out the policy of permitting
trial on the merits, but the moving party has the burden of showing good
cause.” (David v. Thayer (1980) 133 Cal.App.3d 892, 904-905 [internal
citations omitted].)
The mandatory provision of section 473,
subdivision (b), states that “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, or (2) resulting default judgment or dismissal
entered against his or her client, unless the court finds that the default or dismissal
was not in fact caused by the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
neglect.”
The affidavit need only attest to the
attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect in causing the default
or default judgment—the reasons for it need not be explained. (Martin Potts
& Associates, Inc. v. Corsair, LLC (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 432, 439.)
Attestation that one of these reasons existed is sufficient to obtain relief
unless the trial court finds that the dismissal did not occur because of these
reasons. (Graham v. Beers (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1656, 1660.)
Plaintiff brings this Motion to vacate the
order of dismissal entered in this case on the grounds that the dismissal was
entered due to the mistake and inadvertence of Plaintiff’s counsel, Leah S. Schoen
(“Counsel”) to resubmit the default judgment application by January 23, 2025. This
position is supported by Counsel’s declaration. Counsel states that she received
the order from the Court stating that the default judgment was to be
resubmitted by January 23, 2025, but inadvertently did not calendar the deadline.
(Schoen Decl., ¶¶ 2-3, 6.)
The Court finds that the dismissal was the
result of Plaintiff’s Counsel’s mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect. The
Motion was timely filed within six months of the dismissal. In addition, the
Motion is accompanied by Counsel’s sworn affidavit attesting to her mistake and
a copy of the amended default judgment application proposed to be filed. (Schoen
Decl., Ex. B.)
The Motion is GRANTED. The Court orders
that the dismissal be vacated and that the Complaint be reinstated. Plaintiff
shall re-file the default judgment application within ten days of the date of
this order.
Moving
Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
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 22nd day of April 2025
|
|
|
Hon. Holly J.
Fujie Judge of the
Superior Court |