Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV12346, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV12346, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV12346 Hearing Date: November 6, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION TO VACATE

Hearing Date: 11/6/24

CASE NO./NAME: 22STCV12346 MAYRA NAVARRO-TORRES vs CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al.

Moving Party: Plaintiff

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: MOTION TO VACATE IS DENIED

On February 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed the present case. Plaintiff alleges that due to clerical errors within her legal representation, the case was not assigned to the handling attorney, resulting in the Summons and Complaint being unserved. Consequently, the court dismissed the case in October 2023, and Plaintiff allegedly did not receive notice of this dismissal. Nearly one year later, on October 9, 2024, Plaintiff moved the Court for relief from this dismissal.

Under section 473(b), to qualify for statutory relief, a party must seek relief "within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken." (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b); Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 980.) Because Plaintiff filed this motion nearly a year after the dismissal, section 473(b) relief is no longer available.

When the six-month period has expired, a court may grant relief only on equitable grounds, such as extrinsic mistake or extrinsic fraud, where exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. (Olivera v. Grace (1942) 19 Cal.2d 570, 575-76.) To vacate a judgment based on extrinsic mistake, a party must meet a three-part test: (1) demonstrate a meritorious case; (2) provide a satisfactory excuse for not defending the action; and (3) show diligence in seeking relief once the mistake was discovered. (Rappleyea, supra, at p. 982, citing Stiles v. Wallis (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 1143, 1147-48.)

Here, Plaintiff has not satisfied the requirements of the three-part test for equitable relief. While Plaintiff demonstrated diligence by seeking relief promptly after discovering the dismissal, the other two factors have not been met. Specifically, Plaintiff has not provided a sufficient excuse for failing to prosecute the case or to ensure service of the Summons and Complaint. Although California courts favor resolving cases on their merits, this policy primarily applies within the six-month statutory period under section 473(b). Equitable relief beyond that timeframe is strictly limited to extraordinary cases, reflecting a strong policy favoring the finality of judgments (Rappleyea, supra, at pp. 981-982).

Equitable relief for extrinsic mistake is generally unavailable when a party’s own negligence results in the mistake. In Kramer v. Traditional Escrow, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 13, 29–30, the court held that "relief will be denied if the complaining party's negligence permitted the fraud to be practiced or the mistake to occur." Similarly, in Manson v. Kelley (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 36, 47, the court emphasized that a defaulting party must exercise reasonable care in managing their case.

As in Kramer, procedural failures here led to dismissal without a decision on the merits. In Kramer, the defendants failed to participate and to keep their address current, resulting in a default judgment. In this case, Plaintiff’s counsel failed to properly assign the case or ensure the Complaint was served, which led to the dismissal. These facts indicate that the error was due to internal mismanagement, not an external or extrinsic mistake.

Finally, Plaintiff has not presented any argument or evidence showing that her case is meritorious, a necessary element for obtaining equitable relief.

Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal is denied.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion.