Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV18887, Date: 2024-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18887    Hearing Date: March 13, 2024    Dept: 27

Complaint Filed:      6/9/22 

¿ 

Hon. Lee S. Arian¿ 

Department 27¿ 

Tentative Ruling 

Hearing Date:           3/13/2024 

Case No./Name:       22STCV18887 YOUNATAN SAMOUHA vs KAMYAR ANSARI, et al.

Motion:                    MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL

Moving Party:           Plaintiff

Responding Party:    Defendant Tal Ohana

Notice:                     Sufficient¿¿ 

¿¿ 

Ruling:                     Plaintiff's motion to vacate the dismissal of Defendants Massachi and Crystal Investments is DENIED

Plaintiff's motion to vacate the dismissal of Defendant Ohana is GRANTED.

Background 

On 6/9/22, Plaintiff filed the original complaint alleging he was violently thrown by a security guard at an event hosted by Defendants on 5/11/21. On 9/22/22, Plaintiff filed the first amended complaint against Defendants Kamyar Ansari, Botanique, Crystal Investments LLC, Albert Massachi, and Tal Ohana. On 2/21/23, Defendants Leon Group and Stranger Than Us LLC were added to the lawsuit. On 4/10/23, Plaintiff dismissed Defendants Albert Massachi and Crystal Investments, LLC. On 6/13/23, Plaintiff dismissed Defendant Tal Ohana.

On 11/15/23, Plaintiff moved to vacate these dismissals, attributing the decision to the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, and/or excusable neglect. Plaintiff asserts that there was an agreement with the Defendants, stipulating that the litigation would focus on Stranger Than Us LLC and Leon Group, contingent upon the cooperation of these entities following the dismissal of Massachi, Crystal Investments, and Ohana. However, Plaintiff claims that, contrary to this agreement, the Defendants have not engaged in meaningful settlement discussions or fulfilled their cooperation promises. Consequently, Plaintiff now moves the court to set aside the dismissals of Massachi, Crystal Investments, and Ohana.

Legal Standard 

 “It is … well established that it is the policy of the law to bring about a trial on the merits whenever possible, so that any doubts which may exist should be resolved in favor of the application, to the end of securing to a litigant his day in court and a trial upon the merits.”  (Frank E. Beckett Co. v. Bobbitt (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d Supp. 921, 928.)  

CCP Section 473, subdivision (b) provides for two distinct types of relief—commonly differentiated as “discretionary” and “mandatory”—from certain prior actions or proceedings in the trial court. (Luri v. Greenwald (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1124.) “Under the discretionary relief provision, on a showing of ‘mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,’ the court has discretion to allow relief from a ‘judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against’ a party or his or her attorney.  Under the mandatory relief provision, on the other hand, upon a showing by attorney declaration of ‘mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect,’ the court shall vacate any ‘resulting default judgment or dismissal entered.’” (Ibid., internal citations and quotation marks omitted, quoting CCP § 473, subd. (b).)   

An application for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) must be made within a reasonable time and in no case exceeding six months after entry of the judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding from which relief is sought.

Analysis and Conclusion 

Plaintiff's motion to vacate the dismissals of Defendants Albert Massachi and Crystal Investments, LLC is untimely, as these parties were dismissed on April 10, 2023, and the motion was not filed until November 15, 2023, exceeding six months. Thus, Plaintiff's motion to vacate the dismissal of Defendants Massachi and Crystal Investments is too late.

Plaintiff's motion to vacate the dismissal of Defendant Ohana is timely and is supported by an affidavit from Plaintiff's attorney, Joshua Kohanbash, acknowledging his mistake, inadvertence, or negligence. For mandatory relief from a dismissal due to an attorney's fault, California law requires only a demonstration of the attorney's neglect, without necessitating that the neglect be excusable. (J.A.T. Entertainment, Inc. v. Reed (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1485, 1492.) The affidavit suggests that Plaintiff's counsel was negligent as he relied on promises from the opposing party without specific written agreement for cooperation in exchange for dismissing Defendant Ohana.

The Court is not persuaded by Defendant's various miscellaneous arguments against mandatory relief. First, the statute of limitations has not lapsed as the addition of Ohana relates back to the original complaint. Second, the court retains jurisdiction over the case since the case itself has not been dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to vacate the dismissal of Defendant Ohana is GRANTED; the same motion is DENIED as to Defendants Massachi and Crystal Investments.

 ¿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 without leave.¿¿¿¿¿¿