Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV33331, Date: 2024-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV33331    Hearing Date: December 6, 2024    Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Hearing Date: 12/6/24 

CASE NO./NAME: 22STCV33331 ASEMASH GEBRU vs MICHAEL WIRANEGARA

Moving Party: Plaintiff 

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: Sufficient 

Ruling: GRANTED 

On October 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed the present auto accident case. On March 27, 2024, the Court issued an order stating “There is no proof that the Defendant(s) has/have been served in this action,” and scheduled an Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service/Alternatively Trial Setting Conference for October 14, 2024. The Court indicated that if no proof of service was filed by the next court date, the case might be dismissed pursuant to CCP §§ 581(g), 583.410, and 583.420(a)(1), as well as California Rules of Court, rule 3.110(f).

On October 14, 2024, no proof of service had been filed, and the Court dismissed the case pursuant to various statues including CCP § 583.420(a), which permits dismissal if service is not made within two years after the action is commenced against the defendant. On October 24, 2024, Plaintiff moved the Court for reconsideration based on new facts.

Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a declaration and documents indicating that Plaintiff has been engaged in settlement discussions with Defendant's insurer, Farmers Insurance, since shortly after the incident in 2021. These negotiations have continued through 2024, partly due to delays stemming from Plaintiff's ongoing medical treatment and associated complications. Notably, Plaintiff’s medical care was interrupted because she hesitated to continue chiropractic treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Upon receiving the Court’s March 2024 order indicating that the case might be dismissed if no proof of service was filed, Plaintiff's counsel demonstrated diligence in attempting to serve Defendant. Counsel engaged a seasoned process server and investigator to locate Defendant. Recognizing the difficulty of serving Defendant at the address provided at the time of the accident, the investigator initiated a statewide search to determine Defendant’s current residence. These efforts revealed that Defendant had moved out of the Los Angeles area and was residing in Washington State. On October 11, 2024, just days before the scheduled order to show cause hearing, the investigator successfully identified Defendant’s current address. Steps were being taken to retain a local process server when the Court dismissed the case.

Plaintiff has introduced new facts and evidence demonstrating diligence in prosecuting this case, facts that were not available to or relied upon by the Court when it made its prior decision. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and vacates its October 14, 2024, order of dismissal.

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.