Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV22948, Date: 2025-05-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV22948    Hearing Date: May 30, 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.]” (Henderson v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.¿(2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 215, 226.) 

On February 11, 2025, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s action against defendants Imelda Gutierrez and Fred Sosa Martinez (collectively, “Defendants”) without prejudice. Mandatory relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) applies because the motion was filed within six months of the dismissal, and the order at issue is a dismissal. Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a declaration stating he mistakenly believed he could serve the statement of damages by mail at the same address where Defendants were originally served with the summons and complaint. As a result, he did not serve the statement of damages in the same manner as the summons and complaint, which led to dismissal for failure to obtain defaults. Compounding the issue, Defendants no longer resided at the original service address. Counsel alleges that after several months of investigation, Plaintiff has now located Defendants and is prepared to serve the statement of damages.

However, no proof of service has been filed with the Court or attached for review. Under section 473(b), a request for relief must be accompanied by the proposed pleading or supporting documentation, and the failure to do so precludes relief. The Court will therefore conditionally grant the motion, subject to Plaintiff filing proof of service for both Imelda Gutierrez and Fred Sosa Martinez within 20 days. If Plaintiff fails to do so, the motion will be denied for failure to comply with section 473(b).

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.