Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: BC694770, Date: 2025-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC694770    Hearing Date: March 6, 2025    Dept: 54

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

Ramona Burton,

 

 

 

Plaintiff,

 

Case No.:

 

 

BC694770

 

vs.

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

 

Long Beach Unified School District, et al.,

 

 

 

Defendants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hearing Date: March 6, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion to Set Aside Dismissal

Moving Party: Plaintiff Ramona Burton

Responding Party: Defendants Long Beach Unified School District, et al.

 

T/R:      PLAINTIFF’S 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 and opposition.

 

CCP § 473(b) provides, in pertinent part, “[t]he 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.”

 

Plaintiff moves to set aside the dismissal entered by the Court on September 22, 2022. The Court dismissed the action after Plaintiff failed to be ready for trial. Plaintiff asserts that the Court should not have dismissed the action because Plaintiff believed that the notice of settlement filed the day before would vacate all hearing dates. Defendants represented that the notice of settlement was invalid because there was no finalized settlement and because Plaintiff continued to make changes to the settlement after filing the notice. After dismissal, Plaintiff appealed, and the Court of appeal affirmed the dismissal. The remittitur was issued in January 2025.

The Court sees no reason to set aside the dismissal. The Court’s decision was already appealed; the Court of Appeal found that the Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action.

 

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.