Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV22298, Date: 2025-03-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV22298    Hearing Date: March 5, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

“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.) 

On July 12, 2024, counsel for Plaintiff requested additional time to complete the default judgment. The Court directed counsel to file the default judgment five days before the next court date. However, on September 4, 2024, the Court did not receive the default prove-up, and accordingly, dismissed the case without prejudice. On February 7, 2025, Plaintiff moved to vacate the dismissal based on mandatory relief.

Counsel for Plaintiff, Rafael Bernardino, Jr., filed a declaration stating that he was diagnosed with cancer and, as a result, retained co-counsel in this case to assist with the matter. Regarding the July 12, 2024 hearing, co-counsel emailed Bernardino requesting documents necessary to assemble the prove-up. However, due to Bernardino’s condition, he missed several emails from co-counsel and, as a result, did not submit the default paperwork in time for the September 4, 2024 hearing.

Plaintiff has met all the requirements for mandatory relief. First, this motion was filed within six months of the dismissal. Second, the Court’s order at issue is a dismissal, which falls within the narrow exception for mandatory relief. Third, counsel filed a declaration attesting to his mistake. Fourth, counsel’s mistake in failing to provide the prove-up before the September 4, 2024 hearing caused the Court to dismiss the case. Further, counsel declares that he will promptly file the necessary documents once the Court grants relief. Accordingly, the motion is granted.

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.