Complaint Filed: 7/21/22 

 

¿ 

Hon. Lee S. Arian¿ 

Department 27¿ 

Tentative Ruling 

 

Hearing Date: 3/11/2024 

Case No./Name: 22STCV23524 DENNIS CACHO VILLA JR. vs JERRY CHILDS 

Motion: MOTION TO SET ASIDE COURT’S OCTOBER 17, 2023 ORDER 

Moving Party: Plaintiff Dennis Cacho Villa, Jr. 

Responding Party: Defendant Jerry Childs 

Notice: Sufficient¿¿ 

¿¿ 

Ruling: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE IS GRANTED. 

 

Background 

 

On July 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed the current car accident lawsuit against Defendant Jerry Childs. Michael Domingo, Esq. (“Prior Counsel”) initially represented Plaintiff. Following his exit from the Law Offices of Jacob Emrani (“LOJE”) in November 2022, the firm’s failure to monitor Prior Counsel’s email and failure to forward his email to new counsel resulted in Plaintiff's legal team missing all communications sent to Prior Counsel's email address. Consequently, Plaintiff did not receive any emails, notices, or documents that Defendant sent from December 2022, to October 2023, including Defendant's motion to deem Requests for Admission (RFA) admitted, filed on August 14, 2023. (Chun Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5, 10). Plaintiff neither opposed the motion nor attended the hearing. After the hearing, Defendant sent a Notice of Ruling to both Prior Counsel and Ms. Vanessa Velasco, an attorney within LOJE's worker's compensation division. (Chun Decl. ¶ 12) Velasco then alerted the Director of Litigation of LOJE’s Personal Injury Litigation Department and this is how LOJE came to learn of Defendant’s Motion to Deem RFA admitted and the October 17th, 2023 Order. (Chun Decl. ¶ 12). From November to December 2023, Plaintiff met and conferred with Defendant's counsel, provided the discovery responses at issue, and paid the monetary sanctions mandated by the court's October 17, 2023 order. (Chun Decl. ¶ 14). On February 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed the present motion to vacate the court’s October 17, 2023, order deeming Defendant’s RFA, Set One, admitted. Defendant’s opposition did not present any evidence disputing Plaintiff’s alleged technical email error or Plaintiff’s timeline of events. However, Defendant requests the trial, scheduled for July 1, 2024, be continued at least for 4 months in the event that Plaintiff’s present motion is granted. 

 

Legal Standard 

 

CCP 473(b) provides “The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” When relief is sought from sanctions imposed for failing to provide discovery responses, the application must be accompanied by verified responses to the discovery request. But substantial compliance with this requirement is sufficient. (Rodriguez v. Brill (2015) 234 CA4th 715, 729 (party substantially complied by serving copy of verified discovery responses on opposing counsel before hearing on motion for relief). 

 

Analysis 

 

On October 17, 2023, the Court issued an order deeming Defendant’s RFA, Set One, Admitted. On February 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed the present motion to vacate, within the six-month timeframe mandated by CCP 473(b). Furthermore, on December 4, 2023, Plaintiff served responses to Defendant's Requests for Admission (RFA), Set One. (Chung Decl. ¶ 14.) Therefore, Plaintiff sufficiently met the requirement that "Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein."  

 

The declaration from Plaintiff's attorney cited an error al glitch with the email forwarding system, which resulted in Plaintiff not receiving any communications, emails, notices, and/or documents directed to Prior Counsel's email. Plaintiff’s law firm also alleges that it first become aware of the court’s October 17, 2023, order when another attorney within the firm’s worker’s compensation department was notified. Following this, Plaintiff initiated communication with Defendant's counsel, served the discovery responses at issue, and paid the court ordered sanctions. Plaintiff’s counsel’s behavior after its alleged discovery of the October 17, 2023 order, the absence of an opposition to Plaintiff's motion to deem RFA admitted, and Plaintiff’s failure to appear at the hearing, align with Plaintiff's attorney's declaration that he did not receive any emails or notices from opposing counsel. Moreover, Defendant did not offer any evidence to challenge Plaintiff's explanations or the sequence of events. Consequently, the court finds it appropriate to set aside its order deeming Defendant’s RFAs, Set One, admitted due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. Thus, Plaintiff's motion to set aside the October 17, 2023 order is GRANTED. 

 

Defendant’s request to continue is denied.  An opposition is not the place for such a request.  Defendant may bring a motion for that purpose, or, given that it appears Plaintiff is willing to stipulate to a continuance, the parties may so stipulate and file that stipulation for Court action. 

 

¿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.¿¿¿¿¿¿