Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 19STCV46195, Date: 2024-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV46195    Hearing Date: September 13, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: September 13, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion to Set Aside Dismissal

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Alvaro Arevalo, Javier Arevalo and Elsy Erazo

Responding Party: Defendant Arms Trans, Inc.

T/R:      PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL IS DENIED.

PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers. No opposition has been received.

CCP § 473(d) provides that “[t]he court may . . . on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.” “Extrinsic fraud occurs when a party is deprived of his opportunity to present his claim or defense to the court, where he was kept in ignorance or in some other manner fraudulently prevented from fully participating in the proceeding.” (Gibble v. Car-Lene Research, Inc. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 295, 315.) The statutory time limits on relief under CCP §§ 473(b) and 473.5 do not apply, but once the purported extrinsic fraud or mistake is discovered, a party is expected to proceed diligently to seek relief. (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 983-984.)

The parties executed a settlement agreement in January 2021. The action was voluntarily dismissed on March 16, 2022. On September 12, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the settlement and enter judgment against U Work and Guillermo Rubio. On March 6, 2023, Plaintiffs moved to set aside the settlement, asserting that they were unaware Defendant U Work was a suspended corporation at the time of settlement agreement, precluding U Work from entering into a settlement agreement. The Court denied this motion because Plaintiffs did not provide law stating the Court had authority to set aside the settlement.

Though the statutory time limits for setting aside dismissal do not apply to cases of extrinsic fraud, Plaintiff has not diligently moved to set aside the dismissal. Dismissal was entered more than two years ago. Plaintiff has known of the facts giving rise to this motion for at least a year. In addition, Plaintiff has not shown that the March 16, 2022 order is “void” under Section 473(d).

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.