Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 24BBCV00224, Date: 2025-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24BBCV00224    Hearing Date: February 28, 2025    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Jairo Becerra (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on April 29, 2022, he was involved in a motor vehicle accident with Defendants Tereza Cholakian and Albert Cholakian.  Plaintiff alleges that Tereza Cholakian operated the motor vehicle, Albert Cholakian was the person who employed Tereza Cholakian, and that both Defendants are the owners of the motor vehicle. 

            The complaint, filed January 25, 2024, alleges causes of action for: (1) motor vehicle; and (2) general negligence.

B.     Relevant Background and Motion on Calendar

On August 6, 2024, the Court held an Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal.  The Court noted that Plaintiff failed to appear to the hearing, Plaintiff was given proper notice of the hearing via the June 25, 2024 minute order, and that no proof of service of the summons and complaint had been filed.  The Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. 

On December 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the dismissal.  The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief. 

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff moves to set aside the dismissal pursuant to CCP § 473(b), based on the discretionary prong. 

            Plaintiff provides the declaration of his counsel Kamran Behnam, Esq.  Mr. Behnam states that the Court noticed a Case Management Conference for June 25, 2024, but Plaintiff did not receive the minute order setting the Case Management Conference, and thus he failed to appear at the hearing.  (Behnam Decl., ¶3.)  He states that Plaintiff also did not receive the minute order setting the OSC hearing.  (Id.)  Counsel states shortly thereafter, Plaintiff began the process of attempting to serve Defendants, such that Tereza Cholakian was served on July 27, 2024, but Plaintiff was not notified that Tereza Cholakian had been served until October 16, 2024; as such, Plaintiff was operating under the belief that no Defendant had been served.  (Id., ¶4.)  Counsel states that after October 16, 2024, Plaintiff went to file the proof of service of Tereza Cholakian but then became aware that the Court had dismissed the case without prejudice.  (Id., ¶5.)  He states that Plaintiff accepts responsibility for the failures to appear and seeks relief from the dismissals due to the mistake and excusable neglect.  (Id.)  He states that he has audited his office’s mailroom to investigate the issue and has set new parameters in place to ensure this does not happen again.  (Id.) 

Based on the declaration of Mr. Behnam, the Court finds there is substantive merit to the motion based on CCP § 473(b).  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

Plaintiff Jairo Becerra’s motion to vacate the dismissal is granted.  

The Court sets a Case Management Conference for August 28, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. 

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.

DATED: February 28, 2025                                                   ___________________________

                                                                                          John J. Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court