Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV01866, Date: 2024-09-10 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 23CHCV01866    Hearing Date: September 10, 2024    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 9/10/24

Case #23CHCV01866

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL

Motion filed on 5/16/24.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Luisa Antonia Ramirez and Guadalupe Hernandez

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Maelena Diata and Renato Diata

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order setting aside the Court’s 5/16/24 dismissal, without prejudice, of this action. 

RULING: The motion is granted.

SUMMARY OF ACTION & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 6/30/21.  On 6/27/23, Plaintiffs Luisa Antonia Ramirez and Guadalupe Hernandez (Plaintiffs), representing themselves, filed this action for: (1) Motor Vehicle and (2) General Negligence against Defendants Maelena Diata and Renato Diata (Defendants).

On 4/15/24, there were no appearances at the Case Management Conference.  (See 4/15/24 Minute Order).  Therefore, the Court continued the Case Management Conference and set an Order to Show Cause Re Sanctions for Plaintiffs’ Failure to Appear/File Proof of Service for 5/16/24 at 8:30 a.m.  Id.  On 5/16/24, counsel for Defendants appeared, but Plaintiffs did not.  (See 5/16/24 Minute Order).  Therefore, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint without prejudice.  Id.

On 5/16/24, Plaintiffs, still representing themselves, filed and served the instant motion for an order setting aside the Court’s 5/16/24 dismissal of their complaint.  In or around June 2024,  Plaintiffs engaged their current counsel to represent them in this action.  (See Substitution of Attorney Forms filed 8/12/24).  On 8/13/24, Plaintiffs current counsel filed (served on 8/12/24) an additional/supplemental Motion and Memorandum of Points and Authorities along with supporting declarations in support of the original motion.  Defendants have opposed the motion and Plaintiffs have filed a reply to the opposition. 

ANALYSIS

CCP 473(b) provides in relevant 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.”   

Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing that their failure to appear at the 5/16/24 Case Management Conference and Order to Show Cause which resulted in the dismissal of the action was the result of their mistake, inadvertence, surprise and/or excusable neglect.  Plaintiffs were present at the courthouse before 8:30 a.m.; however, based on their observance of the procedure followed by the family law courtrooms which are next to Department F47, Plaintiffs mistakenly believed that they were not supposed to enter the courtroom until called which resulted in Plaintiffs missing the hearing.  (See Plaintiffs’ Decls. filed 8/13/24).  Additionally, Plaintiffs promptly moved for relief upon learning of their mistake by filing their motion the same day the case was dismissed.  Since Plaintiffs have already filed the proofs of service for the summons and complaint, no additional proposed pleading needs to be filed at this time.  (See Proofs of Service filed 4/12/24)    

Contrary to Defendants’ assertion in the opposition, the fact that they will now have to defend against this action does not constitute the type of prejudice which warrants the denial of this motion under the circumstances. 

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted.