Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 24STCV23751, Date: 2025-06-06 Tentative Ruling

The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition has been filed. Any opposition was required to have been filed by May 23, 2025. (Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”), § 1005, subd. (b) [opposition must be filed at least nine court days prior to the hearing].)

Plaintiff sues Defendant Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP pursuant to a September 13, 2024, complaint. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (the “FAC”) on January 10, 2025, alleging causes of action for: (1) intentional tort; (2) fraudulent concealment; (3) deception; (4) intentional misrepresentation; (5) bad faith; and (6) unfair and fraudulent business practice as defined by the UCL.

On April 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for reconsideration (the “Motion”). The Motion is unopposed.

While styled as a motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff’s Motion is actually a request to vacate an order of dismissal. 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. (see 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 discretionary provision of CCP section 473, subdivision (b), states that “[t]he court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein and be made within a reasonable time not exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken. (CCP, § 473, subd. (b).)

Plaintiff requests that the Court vacate the order of dismissal entered in this case because Plaintiff has been actively prosecuting the case and is currently waiting for Defendant to file a demurrer. (Mot., p. 3.) On February 26, 2025, the Court issued a Minute Order stating: “If an answer or response is not filed, Plaintiff is to seek Default.” (2/26/2025 Minute Order.) On March 19, 2025, the Court issued a Minute Order dismissing the FAC without prejudice. (3/19/2025 Minute Order.) The Motion was timely filed within six months of the dismissal.

The Motion is GRANTED. The Court orders that the dismissal be vacated and that the FAC be reinstated. Plaintiff is to file a request for entry of default within 30 days of this order.

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.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court