Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV25862, Date: 2024-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV25862, Date: 2024-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25862 Hearing Date: October 4, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL

Hearing Date: 10/4/24¿

CASE NO./NAME: 22STCV25862 SABRINA GARCIA vs NATALIE ANGELA MATTERA, et al.

Moving Party: Plaintiff

Responding Party: Defendants

Notice: Sufficient¿

Ruling: MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL IS GRANTED.

Background

On August 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed the present case. On January 24, 2024, Plaintiff represented to the Court that the matter had settled. On April 23, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel informed the Court that additional time was needed to file a Request for Dismissal. The Court directed Plaintiff's counsel to file a Notice of Settlement within 15 days and to submit a Declaration addressing the failure to effectuate the disposition of the matter.

On June 5, 2024, Plaintiff's counsel filed a Declaration stating that the parties had agreed to settle the case, but Plaintiff was undergoing final treatment, which delayed the finalization of the settlement. Counsel assured the Court that the settlement would be finalized, and the case dismissed upon completion of Plaintiff's treatment.

On June 7, 2024, the Court considered the Declaration filed by Plaintiff's counsel. The Court stated that if no dismissal was filed and no good cause was shown as to why the case should not be dismissed, it would dismiss the case on its own motion pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1385. The Court ordered Plaintiff's counsel to file a Declaration addressing the delay in dismissing the action five court days before the next hearing. On June 11, 2024, proof of service for Defendants’ summons and complaint was filed. On July 24, 2024, Defendants filed their answer.

On September 5, 2024, the Court noted that no Declaration had been filed as ordered in the minute order dated June 7, 2024. Since no dismissal was filed and no good cause was shown as to why the action should not be dismissed, the Court dismissed the case on its own motion pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1385. Plaintiff now moves the Court to set aside the dismissal.

Legal Standard

Section 473, subdivision (b) states in pertinent part: “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.... Notwithstanding any other requirements of this section, the court shall, whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney's sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, vacate any (1) resulting default entered by the clerk against his or her client, and which will result in entry of a default judgment, or (2) resulting default judgment or dismissal entered against his or her client, unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.” (Italics added.)

Section 473, subdivision (b), provides for two distinct types of relief. “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.” The range of attorney conduct for which relief can be granted in the mandatory provision is broader than that in the discretionary provision, and includes inexcusable neglect. But the range of adverse litigation results from which relief can be granted is narrower. Mandatory relief only extends to vacating a default which will result in the entry of a default judgment, a default judgment, or an entered dismissal.” (Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 615–616.)

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

Plaintiff has met all the requirements for mandatory relief. First, the motion was filed within the six-month deadline. Second, Plaintiff’s attorney submitted a Declaration admitting his mistake. Counsel explained that after Defendant filed an answer on July 24, 2024, and the OSC re dismissal scheduled for August 7, 2024, was vacated by the Court, he believed this fulfilled the Court’s June 7, 2024 minute order. However, Counsel misunderstood the Court’s instructions and incorrectly assumed that Defendant’s answer resolved the settlement issue, leading to his failure to file the required Declaration, which resulted in the case’s dismissal.

Counsel’s misunderstanding is reasonable. Counsel had previously informed the Court that settlement was pending, and the Court’s June 7 order directed Plaintiff to either dismiss the case pursuant to the settlement or file a Declaration explaining the delay. Counsel believed that Plaintiff’s service of the summons and complaint, followed by Defendant’s answer, indicated to the Court that the settlement had fallen through. As a result, counsel mistakenly thought that he did not need to file a Declaration explaining why the action should not be dismissed. As a result of Plaintiff’s failure to file the declaration, the case was dismissed. The Court finds that Counsel’s mistaken belief was the cause for the dismissal. Having, all the requirement for mandatory relief, the present 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 without leave.