Judge Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case Number: 22STLC01573, Date: 2024-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22STLC01573, Date: 2024-03-04 Tentative Ruling

*** Please Note that the Judicial Officer Presiding in Department 25 is Commissioner Latrice A. G. Byrdsong ***
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.

Case Name: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. SBCPV, Inc. dba Kia of Carson

Responding Party: Specially Appearing Defendant Carson CJ dba Car Pros KIA of Carson (erroneously sued as SBCPV, Inc. dba Kia of Carson)

Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate the Dismissal Entered on 03/15/2023 is DENIED

On March 9, 2022, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff) filed a subrogation action against SBCPV, Inc. dba Kia of Carson (Defendant) after the vehicle of Plaintiff’s insured was stolen. On September 26, 2020, Plaintiff’s insured dropped their car off with Defendant to complete an oil change. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant completed the oil change, then parked the car near a car wash, with the keys inside the vehicle, where the vehicle was then stolen. (Complaint, ¶ 6.) Plaintiff filed suit to recover damages in the amount of $7,243.81.

On March 15, 2023, Plaintiff voluntarily requested dismissal of the entire action without prejudice, which was granted. The motion before the Court is a Motion to Set Aside the Dismissal (Motion) filed by Plaintiff on December 13, 2023. Defendant filed an opposition. No reply was filed.

Plaintiff files the Motion under CCP § 187, arguing that granting the Motion would relieve Plaintiff of extreme prejudice because the request for dismissal was submitted with a clerical error, where Plaintiff mistakenly checked the box to dismiss the entire case.

Plaintiff argues that the governing standard is CCP § 187 which provides as follows:

“When jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or this Code, or by any other statute, conferred on a Court or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given and in the exercise of this jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this Code.”

Defendant argues that the Court no longer has jurisdiction to hear the matter because of dismissal. The Court agrees. A voluntary dismissal of an entire action deprives the Court of subject matter jurisdiction as well as personal jurisdiction of the parties. (Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 132 Cal.App.4^th 1101, 1108.) Plaintiff fails to explain in their moving papers how the Court retains jurisdiction over the matter, under CCP § 187[1].

Accordingly, the Motion to Vacate the Dismissal Entered on 03/15/2023 is denied.

[1] Generally, after a judgment has been entered, judges lose the unrestricted power to change it. Rochin v. Pat Johnson Manufacturing Co. (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 1228, 1237 (listing appropriate means for changing judgments, including clerical error, motion for a new trial, motion to vacate a judgment, and a motion for relief under CCP Section 473).