Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 20STCV02428, Date: 2025-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV02428    Hearing Date: February 24, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Background

On January 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed this personal injury lawsuit arising from a sideswipe collision that occurred on January 23, 2018. Plaintiff Lilly Baharestani was a passenger in a vehicle operated by Defendant Global Logistics Transportation. Defendant Dana Patra Cabrera drove the other vehicle involved.

Gateway Insurance insured Defendants Global Logistics and ProCare, but Gateway became insolvent and was placed into liquidation in June 2020. The California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) then took over administration of the claim.

Plaintiff and Defendant Global participated in mediation on December 29, 2023, reaching a conditional settlement in which Defendant Global agreed to pay Plaintiff $115,000, provided GEICO paid $85,000 under Plaintiff’s UM policy. The condition remained unfulfilled, and an additional mediation on October 8, 2024, also failed to resolve the dispute.

Due to ongoing settlement delays, the Court scheduled an OSC regarding dismissal for November 13, 2024. Plaintiff’s counsel allegedly failed to calendar the OSC, missed the hearing, and the Court dismissed the case without prejudice on that date. Plaintiff now moves the court to vacate the dismissal. Defendant Global Logistics opposes.

Legal Standard

“The¿mandatory¿relief provision of section 473(b) is a “narrow exception to the discretionary relief provision for default judgments and¿dismissals.” [Citation.] Its purpose “‘was to alleviate the hardship on parties who¿lose their day in court¿due solely to an inexcusable failure to act on the part of their attorneys.’” [Citation.] An application for¿mandatory¿relief must be filed within six months of entry of judgment and be in proper form, accompanied by an attorney's sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. [Citation.] The defaulting party “must submit sufficient evidence that the default was actually caused by the attorney's error. [Citation.] ‘If the prerequisites for the application of the¿mandatory¿relief provision of section 473, subdivision (b) exist, the trial court does not have discretion to refuse relief.’” [Citation.]” (Henderson v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.¿(2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 215, 226.)

Discussion

The case was dismissed on November 13, 2024, which is within the six-month period to seek relief from dismissal. Additionally, this dismissal falls within the narrow exception for mandatory relief under CCP § 473(b). Plaintiff’s counsel has submitted a declaration attesting to his mistake or inadvertence, declaring: “My failure to appear was a result of an inadvertent calendaring mistake within our office. We were not aware that a hearing had been scheduled. Had we known that the hearing was scheduled, we would have made every attempt to show up at the hearing or at the very least try to appear by court call, if the court allowed that. We will continue to work with our digital intraoffice calendaring system to ensure this does not happen.”

Plaintiff has met all requirements necessary for mandatory relief from dismissal under CCP § 473(b).

Defendant opposes and raises several procedural arguments.

Defendant first argues that the five-year deadline has passed, as this case was filed on January 21, 2020. However, California Rules of Court, Emergency Rule 10 extends this deadline by six months for cases filed before April 6, 2020. Therefore, the 5-year mandatory deadline is July 21, 2025.

Second, Defendant argues it did not receive actual service of the motion and only became aware of it after examining the docket on January 30, 2025, two days after the motion was filed. Defendant further argues it only received 17 court days' notice of the motion, rather than the statutory requirement of 18 court days. However, it is well-settled that a party’s appearance at a motion hearing and opposition to the motion on its merits waives any defects or irregularities regarding notice. (Carlton v. Quint (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 690, 697.)

Third, Defendant argues Plaintiff’s request for relief under CCP § 473(b) should be denied because Plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Pedroza, was present at the August 22, 2024 OSC hearing, where the Court  informed counsel of the subsequent OSC set for November 13, 2024. Defendant notes that despite this prior notice, Plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear at the hearing  or file the required declaration before the scheduled date.

Plaintiff’s counsel's declaration sufficiently demonstrates neglect under CCP § 473(b). Counsel expressly acknowledges the calendaring error, clarifying that the failure to appear at the OSC hearing resulted from an inadvertent mistake in the office's calendaring system. Attorneys frequently manage numerous cases and rely heavily on calendaring systems to track hearings and deadlines. It is therefore reasonable and excusable that counsel would depend on the accuracy of the calendaring system rather than independently remembering every scheduled hearing.

Plaintiff has satisfied all requirements to vacate the dismissal entered on November 13, 2024. Furthermore, the parties have been actively engaged in mediation, and a conditional settlement was reached. Pursuant to California’s strong policy favoring adjudication of cases on their merits, the Court grants the motion.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.