Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 24NNCV00095, Date: 2025-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV00095    Hearing Date: May 2, 2025    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Starkeia Dockery (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she sustained personal injury and monetary damages as a result of being bitten by bed bugs, mold exposure, and other uninhabitable conditions experienced during her tenancy at a housing facility owned and operated by Defendants Centennial Place, Centennial Place Limited Partnership, Centennial Place GP, LLC, and Robin Hughes.  

On March 3, 2022, Plaintiff alleges that she moved into the subject housing facility and was assigned Unit 426.  She alleges that on March 14, 2022, she began finding numerous itchy, red bed bug bites across her arms and legs.  Plaintiff alleges that she discovered bed bugs in her unit.  Plaintiff alleges that she immediately reported the bed bugs to management and, on March 25, 2022, an exterminator treated the unit for bed bugs, but Plaintiff continued to suffer from an infestation in the unit.  She also alleges that the unit was uninhabitable due to mold infestation, cockroach infestation, little air ventilation, temporary displacement due to flooding, human and animal feces left for long periods of time on the property, exposed asbestos, inconsistent water temperature, and random activation of the fire alarm that triggered her epilepsy. 

            The complaint, filed March 4, 2024, alleges causes of action for: (1) battery; (2) negligence; (3) IIED; (4) statutory breach of warranty of habitability (Civil Code, §§ 1941, 1941.1); (5) tortious breach of warranty of habitability; (6) violation of Business & Professions Code, § 17200 et seq.; (7) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (8) violation of Civil Code, § 1942.3; (9) violation of Civil Code, § 1942.4; (10) negligent violation of statutory duty to maintain habitable conditions; (11) breach of contract; (12) private nuisance; and (13) public nuisance.   

B.     Relevant Background and Motion on Calendar

On September 9, 2024, the Court held an Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal.  The Court noted that Plaintiff failed to appear, Plaintiff was given proper notice of the hearing via the August 6, 2024 minute order, and that there was no proof of service filed in the action.  The Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. 

On March 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief pursuant to CCP § 473(b).   

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief. 

DISCUSSION

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

            Plaintiff provides the declaration of her counsel Ilan N. Rosen Janfaza.   Mr. Janfaza states that the case was inadvertently and mistakenly not placed on the law office calendar.  (Janfaza Decl., ¶4.)  Counsel states that a Case Management Conference was sent out on March 8, 2024 by the Court, but he did not receive notice of the hearings in this matter as all notices were sent to his old address at 9025 Wilshire Blvd., Penthouse Floor, Beverly Hills, CA 90211.  (Id., ¶5, Ex. B [Certificate of Mailing of September 9, 2024 Minute Order].)  Counsel states that the new address of his law firm is located at 9025 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 304, Beverly Hills, CA 90211.  (Id., ¶5.)  He states that he only realized what had occurred upon a routine search of cases filed by his office in the past year on March 13, 2025 and, thereafter, immediately filed this motion for relief.  (Id., ¶6.)  He states that his failure to appear at the Court hearings was due to his mistake, surprise, inadvertence, or neglect.  (Id., ¶7.) 

As a preliminary matter, the motion is not timely filed pursuant to CCP § 473(b).  The dismissal was entered on September 9, 2024.  The motion was filed on March 13, 2025.  To be timely, the motion must have been filed within 6 months of the entry of the dismissal.  (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)].)  In other words, the motion must have been filed by March 10, 2025 (i.e., 182 days from September 9, 2024).  As the motion was not timely filed, the motion to set aside the dismissal pursuant to CCP § 473(b) is denied. 

However, the Court will, on its own motion, grant the motion to vacate the dismissal pursuant to CCP § 473(d).  The Court notes that the papers filed by Plaintiff’s counsel in this action all bear his current address at 9025 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 304, Beverly Hills, CA 90211—including the summons and the complaint’s caption.  Although counsel’s papers bore the “Suite 304” address, the Court’s system pulls attorney addresses from the address publicly posted by counsel on the California State Bar website associated with their bar number.  Thus, at the time Plaintiff filed this action, Mr. Janfaza’s address was located at the “Penthouse Floor” address.  If Plaintiff’s counsel did not update his address on the California State Bar website, but had a different address in the summons, complaint, and other documents, he should have filed a Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information to update the Court about his changed address.  (It is also unclear why mail sent to the Penthouse Floor was not redirected to Suite 304 in the same building.)  Nevertheless, the Court will grant the motion to vacate the dismissal based on a system and/or clerical error pursuant to CCP § 473(d).  

Mr. Janfaza has multiple cases pending in this and other courts. He has an obligation to make sure his address is properly updated at the State Bar at all times. He should note that this excuse will not work twice in this courtroom.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Starkeia Dockery’s motion to vacate the dismissal is granted pursuant to CCP § 473(d).  Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to file a Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information so that Plaintiff’s current address is on record and properly noticed with the Court.  

The Court sets a Case Management Conference for November 4, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. 

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.

DATED: May 2, 2025                                                                        ___________________________

                                                                                          John J. Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court