Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV44565, Date: 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV44565    Hearing Date: February 10, 2023    Dept: 54

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

Maria Cardozo, et al.,

 

 

 

Plaintiffs,

 

Case No.:

 

 

20STCV44565

 

vs.

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

 

Kamran Tavakoli, et al.,

 

 

 

Defendants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hearing Date: February 10, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion to Set Aside Dismissal

Moving Party: Defendants/Cross-Complainants Kamran Tavakoli, Sharona Arastoozad Tavakoli and Bonnie Brae St 26, LLC

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Maria Cardozo, Julio Garcia and Valeria Garcia.

 

T/R:     CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL IS GRANTED.

 

CROSS-COMPLAINANTS 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 and opposition.

 

            CCP § 473(d) provides, in pertinent part, “[t]he court may…on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.”

           

Defendants/Cross-Complainants move to set aside dismissal of their cross-complaint against Cross-Defendant Jose Casteneda on the ground that their former counsel filed a request for dismissal without their consent.

 

A request for dismissal of the cross-complaint was filed on September 21, 2021. On September 13, 2022, Cross-Complainants’ former counsel, Demler, Armstrong, & Rowland, LLP, was relieved per a court order. Cross-Complainant Kamran Tavakoli declares that Tavakoli did not consent to the dismissal and did not learn of the dismissal until December 2022 while preparing for Defendant Bonnie Brae St 26, LLC’s deposition. (Decl. Tavakoli ¶ 9.)

 

In opposition, Plaintiffs assert that Tavakoli’s declaration is insufficient to establish Demler did not have authority to request dismissal. The Court disagrees. Tavakoli has submitted a declaration under the penalty of perjury and Plaintiffs provide no reason to suspect Tavakoli’s statements are untrue.

 

Cross-Complainants’ motion to set aside dismissal is GRANTED.