Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV18800, Date: 2024-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV18800, Date: 2024-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18800 Hearing Date: November 20, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION TO VACATE

Hearing Date: 11/20/24

CASE NO./NAME: 22STCV18800 SANDRA DEVORA ALONSO vs. CLEMENTS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT et al.

Moving Party: Plaintiff

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: GRANTED

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

On September 4, 2024, the Court dismissed this case without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to file a required declaration or Request for Dismissal prior to the OSC (Order to Show Cause) re Dismissal hearing. Plaintiff alleges this failure was due to counsel’s oversight in not calendaring the deadline to file the declaration. Although Plaintiff’s counsel appeared for the OSC hearing via LACourt Connect, the matter was not heard because no declaration or Request for Dismissal had been submitted. Plaintiff now moves the Court to vacate its September 4, 2024 dismissal.

The present motion is timely. The case was dismissed on September 4, 2024, and the motion was filed on October 18, 2024, within the six-month deadline under California Code of Civil Procedure §473(b). Second, Plaintiff’s counsel has submitted a declaration attesting to her mistake in failing to file the required documents prior to the OSC. The dismissal was a direct result of counsel’s error. Third, dismissal is one of the court orders that qualifies for mandatory relief under §473(b). All statutory requirements to vacate the dismissal are satisfied.

Moreover, the parties have already reached a settlement, and the terms of the agreement have been presented to the Court. Dismissing the case due to counsel’s oversight would cause undue prejudice to Plaintiff. Accordingly, the motion is granted.

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.