Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV23706, Date: 2023-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV23706    Hearing Date: December 22, 2023    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On June 25, 2021, Plaintiffs Juvencio Rafael Munoz Sanchez, Lucia Avila, Lynette Munoz and Elina Munoz filed this action against Defendants Jaime Jimenez (“Jaime Jimenez”), Maria Leonor Jimenez (“Maria Leonor Jimenez”), and Does 1-10 for negligence, “negligence—premises,” breach of lease, and wrongful eviction. 

On August 27, 2021, Maria Leonor Jimenez filed an answer.  On October 12, 2021, Jaime Jimenez filed an answer. 

On May 24, 2023, Plaintiffs’ counsel did not appear for the final status conference or contact the Court.  The Court continued the final status conference to the May 31, 2023 trial date and ordered all parties to report in person with trial binders on May 31, 2023. 

On May 31, 2023, Plaintiffs' counsel did not appear for trial.  The Court dismissed the action without prejudice. 

On September 12, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal without prejudice. 

On September 14, 2023, Plaintiffs filed another motion to vacate the dismissal.  On December 11, 2023, Maria Leonor Jimenez and Jaime Jimenez (“Defendants”) filed an opposition. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

Plaintiffs request that the Court vacate the dismissal. 

Defendants request that the Court deny the motion and award attorneys' fees. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

          Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), provides in 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. 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. . . .” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiffs request an order vacating the May 31, 2023 order of dismissal under the discretionary relief provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b).  (See Motion p. 2.)  

In support of Plaintiffs’ previous motion to vacate the May 31, 2023 order of dismissal, Plaintiffs’ counsel submitted a declaration stating that he fell ill with Covid on May 28, 2023, and as a result did not appear for trial on May 31, 2023.  Counsel stated he sent a notice to the Court on May 30, 2023, but the Court did not have a record of receiving the notice.  The Court denied the motion without prejudice because the dismissal was also based on Plaintiffs’ counsel’s failure to appear for the final status conference scheduled for May 24, 2023, which Plaintiffs’ motion did not address. 

Plaintiffs’ new motion to vacate the dismissal asserts that Plaintiffs’ counsel did not appear at the May 24, 2023 final status conference because counsel was appearing in another courtroom on a different case and the hearing took longer than anticipated. 

Defendants argue the Court should deny the motion because Plaintiffs have not explained their counsel’s failure to cooperate in the preparation of the documents needed for trial binders, which were due at the May 24, 2023 final status conference.  The Court agrees that Plaintiffs have failed to explain this failure to comply with their obligations under the Court’s Eighth Amended Standing Order.  

Nonetheless, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown the dismissal was the result of their counsel’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect under the discretionary prong of Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b).  Although counsel’s conduct risked his clients’ ability to prosecute their case and seriously inconvenienced Defendants and their counsel, “doubtful cases are usually resolved in favor of granting relief” under section 473, subdivision (b).  (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 5:401, p. 5-117 (Cal. Practice Guide) [“ ‘Because the law strongly favors trial and disposition on the merits, any doubts in applying section 473 must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default’” (quoting Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 233)].)  Plaintiffs’ counsel’s claim of illness creates doubt about applying the statute. 

Therefore, the Court grants the motion. 

The Court denies Defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees because they are available only when relief is granted under the mandatory provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b).  Here, Plaintiffs sought relief only under the statute’s discretionary provision. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the May 31, 2023 order dismissing the case. 

The Court DENIES Defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees. 

The Court sets a Trial Setting Conference for January 19, 2024, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. 

Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Moving parties are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.