Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 24STCV17434, Date: 2025-04-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV17434    Hearing Date: April 8, 2025    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Santiago Elias Garcia Guzman, et al (“Plaintiffs”)

RESPONDING PARTY: None

            The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition has been filed.

BACKGROUND

            This is a habitability case. On July 15, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) against Aria Grand View LLC, Padilla Holdings LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of warranty of habitability; (2) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment; (3) negligence; and (4) breach of contract.

            On March 4, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to set aside the dismissal of Padilla Holdings LLC (the “Motion”). The Motion is unopposed.

DISCUSSION

“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. [Citation.] 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. [Citations.]” (David v. Thayer (1980) 133 Cal.App.3d 892, 904-905.) 

Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 473, subdivision (b) provides that a court must vacate any resulting default judgment or dismissal entered against an attorney’s client whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entering of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by the attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect, unless the court finds that the fault or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. (CCP § 473, subd. (b).) 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.) This is because “the purpose of the mandatory relief provision under section 473, subdivision (b) is achieved by focusing on who is to blame, not why.” (Martin Potts, supra, 244 Cal.App.4th at p. 439.)

For example, California courts have determined that an attorney’s conscious decision not to answer a complaint on behalf of his or her client is grounds for mandatory relief under this statutory subdivision. (Solv-All v. Superior Court (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1003, 1010.) The lawyer’s negligence need not be the exclusive or sole cause of the client’s loss so long as it was in fact a proximate cause. (Milton v. Perceptual Develop. Corp. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 861, 867.) However, mandatory relief under section 473, subdivision (b) may be denied where dismissal [or default] resulted from intentional conduct rather than a mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. (See Pagarigan v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare of Cal., Inc. (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 38, 45-46.)

            Plaintiffs bring this Motion on grounds that the dismissal of Padilla Holdings LLC was entered based on Plaintiffs’ counsel’s mistake and neglect. This position is supported by the Declaration of Ashley Soto (“Soto Decl.”). Plaintiffs’ counsel states that she forgot to calendar the January 8, 2025 due date for the declaration regarding dismissal or service of Padilla Holdings LLC. (Soto Decl., ¶ 10.) Consequently, counsel did not submit the required declaration and the Court dismissed Padilla Holdings LLC from this action on January 17, 2025. (1/17/2025 Minute Order.)

The Court finds that the dismissal of Padilla Holdings LLC was the result of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect. In addition, the Motion was timely filed within six months of the dismissal and is accompanied by counsel’s sworn affidavit attesting to her mistake. (CCP, § 473, subd. (b).)

Thus, Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED.  The Court orders that the dismissal of Padilla Holdings LLC be vacated.

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 8th day of April 2025