Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 20STLC02682 2023-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 20STLC02682, Date: 2023-02-27 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time. **Please note we no longer use CourtCall**

Case Number: 20STLC02682 Hearing Date: February 27, 2023 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL, REINSTATE COMPLAINT, AND CORRECT DEFENDANT’S NAME

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Toby Lee Jones

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL REINSTATE COMPLAINT, CORRECT NAME

(CCP § 473)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Toby Lee Jones’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal, Reinstate Complaint, and Correct Defendant Jee Song Kuriel’s Name is GRANTED in part. Dismissal, entered on March 7, 2022, is hereby VACATED. Plaintiff’s request to correct Defendant’s name is DENIED without prejudice.

SERVICE:

[ ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[ ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[ ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of February 23, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of February 23, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On March 18, 2020, Plaintiff Toby Lee Jones (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Maya Kim Kuriel (“Maya”), Yaacov Kuriel (“Yaacov”) and Jee Kuriel (“Jee”), (collectively “Defendants”), arising out of an alleged motor vehicle accident on April 16, 2019.

On February 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default/Judgment; default was entered as to all three Defendants. (2-22-21 Request for Entry of Default/Judgment.) On March 7, 2022, the Court held a hearing for Order to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default Judgment/Dismissal and why sanctions should not be imposed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.110(h). Neither party appeared at the hearing, so the Court dismissed the Complaint without prejudice. (3-7-22 Minute Order.)

On May 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reinstate Complaint and Correct Defendant Jee Song Kuriel’s Name. On August 1, 2022, the Court noted that Plaintiff had failed to serve and file a notice of motion and continued the hearing to September 6, 2022, to provide Plaintiff with additional time to file a notice. (8-1-22 Minute Order.) On September 6, 2022, pursuant to the Plaintiff’s request, the Court again continued the hearing to provide Plaintiff with additional time to file supplemental papers. (9-6-22 Minute Order.) On September 20, 2022, the Court noted that Plaintiff had not filed additional papers and accordingly, denied the Motion. (9-20-22 Minute Order.)

On December 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Vacate Dismissal, Reinstate Complaint, and Correct Defendant Jee Song Kuriel’s Name (“Motion”).

On January 9, 2023, the Court continued the hearing on the Motion to allow Plaintiff additional time to file supplemental papers addressing deficiencies. (1-9-23 Minute Order.) On January 17, 2023, and February 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed supplemental papers.

No opposition has been filed.

II. Legal Standard

Discretionary relief is available under Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) as “the court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Alternatively, mandatory relief is available when “accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.” (Ibid.) Under this statute, an application for discretionary or mandatory relief must be made no more than six months after entry of the judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding from which relief is sought. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b); English v. IKON Business Solutions (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 130, 143.)

“‘[W]hen relief under section 473¿is¿available, there is a strong¿public¿policy¿in¿favor¿of granting relief and allowing the requesting party his or her day in court…[Citation.]” (Rappleyea v. Campbell¿(1994) 8 Cal. 4th 975, 981-82.)

Code of Civil Procedure § 473(a)(1) provides that, “the court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer.”

“Even where relief is no longer available under statutory provisions, a trial court generally retains the inherent power to vacate a default judgment or order on equitable grounds where a party establishes that the judgment or order was void for lack of due process or resulted from extrinsic fraud or mistake.” (County of San Diego v. Gorham (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1228; Bacon v. Bacon (1907) 150 Cal. 477, 491-92; Olivera v. Grace, 122 P.2d 564, 567-68; Stiles v. Wallis (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 1143, 1147 (“There are four grounds which a court, utilizing its equity capacity may rely upon to provide relief from default. Those areas are (1) void judgment, (2) extrinsic fraud, (3) constructive service, and (4) extrinsic mistake.”) In limited civil cases, grounds for equitable relief also include “inadvertence or excusable neglect.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 86(b)(3).)

III. Discussion

At a hearing on March 7, 2022, the Court noted that no appearance was entered for Plaintiff and dismissed the Complaint without prejudice. (3-7-22 Minute Order.)

On December 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Vacate Dismissal, Reinstate Complaint, and Correct Defendant Jee Song Kuriel’s Name.

On January 9, 2023, the Court noted that Plaintiff’s motion was not timely, as it had been filed more than six months since dismissal of the Complaint. (1-9-23 Minute Order.) However, the Court stated that it had the inherent power to vacate the dismissal if Plaintiff established that dismissal should be vacated on equitable grounds. (Ibid.)

Furthermore, the Court noted the following deficiencies in the Motion.

First, Plaintiff submitted a declaration explaining why he failed to appear at the hearing date on September 20, 2022, but did not provide the Court with any explanation as to his failure to appear on March 7, 2022, the date on which the Complaint had been dismissed. (1-9-23 Minute Order; Osias Decl. ¶ 7.)

Second, the Court noted that until the instant Motion, Plaintiff had served Defendants at 2900 S. Sepulveda Blvd. #410, Los Angeles, CA 90064. (1-9-23 Minute Order; 7-10-20 Proof of Service by Substituted Service; 11-23-21 Proof of Service, 5-3-22 Motion p. 8.) However, on December 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed Proof of Service indicating that Defendants were served at 1446 Tamarind Avenue, Apt. 208, Los Angeles, CA 90028. (1-9-23 Minute Order; 12-9-22 Proof of Service.) The Court requested additional information to confirm that Defendants have been properly served with the instant Motion. (Ibid.)

Thus, the Court continued the hearing on the Motion and ordered Plaintiff to file supplemental papers addressing these deficiencies. (1-9-23 Minute Order.)

On February 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration indicating that his “failure to appear at the hearing on March 7, 2022, to enter judgment by default was due to [his] mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (2-14-23 Supp. Osias Decl. ¶ 6.) Specifically, Plaintiff states that he failed to calendar the hearing due to a specific reason of sensitive nature that he can explain to the Court in camera and instead scheduled an appearance for another matter at the Torrance Courthouse on the same day. (Ibid. at ¶¶ 7-8.)

Regarding the different addresses where Defendants were served, Plaintiff explains that the address “2900 S. Sepulveda Blvd, #410, Los Angeles, CA 90065,” appeared on Defendant Maya’s driver’s license, while the address “1446 Tamarind Avenue, Apt. 208, Los Angeles, CA 90028,” appeared in the registration of Defendants’ vehicle with the Department of Motor Vehicles. (Ibid. at ¶ 9, Ex. B.) Plaintiff states that “now and going forward, I will serve both addresses as a precautionary measure and other interested parties.” (Ibid.) Plaintiff has submitted proof that the supplemental papers have been served on Defendants at both addresses. (2-14-23 Supp. Osias Decl. p. 4; 2-14-23 Supp. Notice and Motion p. 9.) He has also submitted proof of serving other potentially interested parties with the moving papers. (1-17-23 Proof of Service.)

The Court finds Plaintiff’s declaration sufficient to demonstrate that he failed to appear at the March 7, 2022, hearing due to his inadvertence, mistake, and excusable neglect. The Court also accepts Plaintiff’s explanation regarding Defendants’ different addresses and finds that Defendants have been properly served with the moving papers.

However, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not submitted sufficient evidence to correct Defendant Jee Kuriel’s name as Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any proof of Defendant’s legal name.

Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal and vacates dismissal entered on March 7, 2022, on equitable grounds. However, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request to correct Defendant’s name.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

An Order to Show Cause re: filing of answer or entry of default is set for May 17, 2023 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 25.

Moving party is ordered to give notice to all Defendants.