Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV02513, Date: 2024-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV02513    Hearing Date: September 6, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiffs Kristina Melara, Michelle Lopez, Eddie Araujo, and Benny Sanchez (“Plaintiffs”) alleges that on October 11, 2021, they were involved in a motor vehicle with Defendant Alina Nazarenko (“Defendant”).

            The complaint, filed October 26, 2023, alleges a single cause of action for motor vehicle.

B.     Relevant Background and Motion on Calendar

On July 18, 2024, the Court an Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution.  The Court noted that Plaintiff failed to appear, Plaintiff given proper notice of the hearing via the May 23, 2024 minute order, and that there was no proof of service filed in the action.  The Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. 

On July 24, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the dismissal.

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief. 

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiffs move to set aside the dismissal pursuant to CCP § 473(b).   

            Plaintiffs provide the declaration of counsel Seroj Meserkhani.  Mr. Meserkhani states that the action was filed by attorney Nejdeh Bagramian and that Mr. Bagramian had served a copy of the of the summons and complaint on Defendant on January 12, 2024.  (Meserkhani Decl., ¶2, Ex. 1.)  Counsel states that Mr. Bagramian passed away unexpectedly on May 5, 2024 and thus he did not appear to the May 23, 2024 hearing.  (Id., ¶3.)  Mr. Meserkhani states that he does not have personal knowledge about Mr. Bagramian’s cases, did not know of this case or its procedural history/posture, and was not aware of the May 23, 2024 hearing or the subsequent July 18, 2024 hearing.  (Id., ¶4.)  Counsel states that he became aware of this action recently when he was going through Mr. Bagramian’s cases and defense counsel informed him of the dismissal entered in this action.  (Id., ¶5.)  Mr. Meserkhani states that he has now taken over this case and has begun discussing with defense counsel issues ranging from settlement to demurrer.  (Id., ¶6.) 

Based on the declaration of Mr. Meserkhani, the Court finds there is substantive merit to the motion.  Further, the motion was timely brought within 6 months of the dismissal and the motion is unopposed.  Thus, the motion to vacate the dismissal is granted.  

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal is granted.  

The Court sets a Case Management Conference for March 12, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. 

Plaintiffs shall provide notice of this order.

DATED: September 6, 2024                                                  ___________________________

                                                                                          John J. Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court