Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 22BBCV00050, Date: 2024-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Counsel who wish to submit on the tentative ruling may do so by emailing BURDeptB@lacourt.org

PLEASE WRITE THE CASE NUMBER AND PARTY YOU REPRESENT.  YOU MAY ONLY SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF THE PARTY YOU REPRESENT.  YOU MAY NOT SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PARTY. Counsel are directed to cc all other counsel if you are submitting on the tentative ruling.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR NEED CLARIFICATION ON THE TENTATIVE, YOU MUST APPEAR AND ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE COURT.

IF BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE RULING, THE TENTATIVE RULING THEN BECOMES THE ORDER OF THE COURT ON THE MOTION DATE AND NO APPEARANCES ARE NECESSARY.

THERE WILL BE NO RESPONSES TO ANY INQUIRIES SUBMITTED THROUGH THIS SITE.

Warning regarding electronic appearances:    All software for remote or electronic appearances is subject to malfunction based on system weakness and human error, which can originate from any of the multiple parties participating each morning. The seamless operation of the Court’s electronic appearance software is dependent on numerous inconstant and fluctuating factors that may impact whether you, or other counsel or the Court itself can be heard in a particular case. Not all these factors are within the control of the courtroom staff. For example, at times, the system traps participants in electronic purgatories where they cannot be heard and where the courtroom staff is not aware of their presence. If you call the courtroom, please be respectful of the fact that a court hearing is going on, and that the courtroom staff is doing their best to use an imperfect system. If it is truly important to you to be heard, please show up to the courtroom in the normal way. Parking is free or reasonable in Burbank.

THANK YOU!

Case Number: 22BBCV00050    Hearing Date: April 12, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Craig R. Hargreaves (“Plaintiff”) alleges that he is the owner of a 1975 Ford F250 Pickup Truck.  Plaintiff alleges that in January 2020, he approached Defendant West Coast Customs, Inc. (“WCC”) to perform certain customizations to the truck, including a custom paint job, reupholstering, swapping the axels, and much more.  He alleges that on May 12, 2020, the truck was shipped to WCC for a quote.  On June 10, 2020, Plaintiff was provided a quote for the cost of $187,218.11 and was told it would take no more than 1 year to complete, upon Plaintiff’s approval for the work to begin and the payment of a $100,000 deposit (the remaining $87,218.11 to be paid at the completion of the contract).  In June 2020, Plaintiff provided a check to WCC for $100,000, which was cashed on June 19, 2020.  Plaintiff alleges that he anticipated the vehicle to be finished around June 2021, but over the course of the year, Plaintiff only received 1 photograph of progress.  He alleges that he went to WCC’s store in April/early May 2021, and saw that no meaningful work had been completed on the truck.  Plaintiff alleges that no progress reports or photographs were received after his meeting and it has been 18 months since the initial contract was entered. 

The complaint, filed January 21, 2022, alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (3) conversion.

B.     Relevant Background and Motion on Calendar

On March 22, 2022, the default of West Coast Customs, Inc. was entered. 

On August 10, 2023, the Court held an Order to Show Cause: Dismissal (Settlement).  The Court noted that on May 3, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel represented that the case had settled.  The Court thereby dismissed the complaint with prejudice. 

On March 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the judgment dismissing the action with prejudice. 

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff moves to set aside the dismissal of the action pursuant to the discretionary prong of CCP § 473(b). Plaintiff’s counsel Keith M. Gregory states that after settlement discussions with defense counsel, he and Plaintiff were confident that the case would get settled, such that Plaintiff chose not to appear at the OSC re dismissal scheduled for August 10, 2023, but this decision was a mistake.  (Gregory Decl., ¶7.) 

            The dismissal was entered on August 10, 2023.  The motion was filed on March 8, 2024.  To be timely pursuant to CCP § 473(b), the motion must be filed within 6 months of the dismissal, or 182 days.  (See Davis v. Thayer (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 892, 903 [concluding that 6 months is the equivalent of half a year, or under Gov’t Code § 6803, 182 days for the purposes of CCP § 473(b)].)  The 182^nd day from August 10, 2023 falls on February 8, 2024.  Thus, the motion was not timely filed and was filed a month too late.  As the motion was not timely filed, the motion to vacate the dismissal pursuant to CCP § 473(b) is denied. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Plaintiff Craig R. Hargreaves’ motion to set aside the dismissal is denied. 

            Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.

DATED:  April 12, 2024                                                        ___________________________

                                                                                          John J. Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court