Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV32040, Date: 2025-06-06 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org.  Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line.  In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  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 you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.     If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.

                                       Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.  This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.    
 
            If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.  

Case Number: 22STCV32040    Hearing Date: June 6, 2025    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND

On September 30, 2022, Plaintiff Scott C. Hathaway (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Shan Zhu (“Defendant”) and Does 1-25 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.

On December 6, 2022, Defendant filed an answer.

On November 6, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel.

On March 9, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for delay in prosecution.  The motion was set for hearing on May 6, 2025.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.  The Court continued the hearing to June 6, 2025.

Trial is scheduled for July 21, 2025.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendant asks the Court to dismiss the action for delay in prosecution

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 583.410 provides: 

“(a) The court may in its discretion dismiss an action for delay in prosecution pursuant to this article on its own motion or on motion of the defendant if to do so appears to the court appropriate under the circumstances of the case. 

“(b) Dismissal shall be pursuant to the procedure and in accordance with the criteria prescribed by rules adopted by the Judicial Council.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 583.410.)

“(a) The court may not dismiss an action pursuant to this article for delay in prosecution except after one of the following conditions has occurred: 

“(1) Service is not made within two years after the action is commenced against the defendant. 

“(2) The action is not brought to trial within the following times: 

“(A) Three years after the action is commenced against the defendant unless otherwise prescribed by rule under subparagraph (B). 

“(B) Two years after the action is commenced against the defendant if the Judicial Council by rule adopted pursuant to Section 583.410 so prescribes for the court because of the condition of the court calendar or for other reasons affecting the conduct of litigation or the administration of justice. . . .”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 583.420, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

Defendant asks the Court to dismiss the case, arguing Plaintiff has failed to diligently prosecute his case since his attorney was relieved.  According to Defendant, Plaintiff did not participate in an exchange of expert witness information, failed to appear for the final status conference on April 16, 2024, and appeared late for the trial set on April 30, 2024.

On July 26, 2024, the Court set the trial for July 21, 2025.

Defendant has not shown that dismissal is mandatory or that it is appropriate for the Court to exercise its discretion to dismiss the case.  The Court denies the motion.

CONCLUSION

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

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