Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22STLC04612, Date: 2024-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC04612    Hearing Date: May 9, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Thursday, May 9, 2024

Case Name:                             Wendy V. Donis Sandoval, et al. v. Zai Huang, et al.

Case No.:                                22STCL04612

Motion:                                   Motion to Vacate Order of Dismissal Entered by the Court on January 9, 2024

Moving Party:                         Plaintiffs

Responding Party:                   N/A - Unopposed

Notice:                                    OK

Recommended Ruling:           Motion to Vacate and Set Aside the Order of Dismissal Entered by the Court on January 9, 2024 is GRANTED.

An ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Re:  Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Default/Default Judgment is set for JULY 9, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 25 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

BACKGROUND

            On July 12, 2022, Wendy Sandoval filed a Complaint on behalf of herself and two minor children (Plaintiffs) after an automobile accident. Plaintiffs alleged that Zai Huang (Defendant) negligently drove their vehicle and collided with Plaintiffs’ vehicle. (Complaint, ¶ GN-1.) On January 9, 2024, the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute. The motion now before the Court is a Motion to Vacate the Order of Dismissal (the Motion). The Motion is unopposed.   

DISCUSSION

Legal Standard

            Plaintiffs file the Motion under Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b) which provides: “The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.”

Analysis

            Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel provides an affidavit that declares that the failure to prosecute was caused by a mis-calendaring by counsel’s office. (Declaration of Eugene S. Fu, ¶ 5.) Plaintiffs’ counsel notes that the mis-calendaring stems from what appears to be the unexpected resignation of a legal assistant. Counsel reassures the Court that oversights like this will be prevented in the future as the office has implemented measures that allow for court dates to be meticulously tracked. (Id. at ¶ 7.) The Court notes that California has a strong public policy in favor of deciding cases on the merits, especially if the opposing party has suffered no prejudice. (Oliveros¿v. County of Los Angeles¿(2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1389, 1398-1399. Also see CCP § 583.130.) As the mistake described by Plaintiffs’ counsel is representative of the types of mistake Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b) is meant to address, the Motion is granted.  

Conclusion

            Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate the Order of Dismissal Entered on January 9, 2024 is GRANTED.

            The Court sets an Order Show Cause Re: Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Default/Default Judgment for JULY 9, 2024, at 9:30 am in Department 25 of the Sprong Street Courthouse. 

            Moving party is ordered to give notice.