Judge Michael Small, Case Number: 20STCV18932, Date: 2024-06-11 Tentative Ruling

Inform the clerk if you submit on the tentative ruling. If moving and opposing parties submit, no appearance is necessary.

On July 31, 2020, the Court (per Judge Steven Kleifield) granted Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint for underinsured motorist benefits ("UIM") in light of a then-ongoing binding arbitration between the parties over Plaintiffs' claim for UIM benefits. The parties eventually converted the UIM arbitration to binding UIM mediation. The mediation concluded in September 2023, with the mediator awarding UIM benefits to Plaintiffs.

Pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion to vacate the dismissal of their complaint. Plaintiffs state that the impetus of their motion is the fact that UIM arbitration/mediation has now been completed. Plaintiffs' motion is based on Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(b), which provides, in pertinent part, that "[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." An application for relief under this portion of Section 473(b) "shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken."

The Court is denying Plaintiffs' motion because it does not fall within the parameters of Section 473(b).

For one, the motion is untimely. It was filed in January 2024, more than 3.5 years after the July 31, 2020 dismissal of their complaint that Plaintiffs seek to vacate. Yes, the motion was filed within six months of the completion of the UIM arbitration/mediation. But Section 473(b)'s six-month clock starts running from the time the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding that is the subject of a Section 473(b) motion was taken. The dismissal in question here was taken way more than six months before the motion was filed.

Second, even if somehow the Section 473(b) clock started running when the UIM arbitration/mediation was completed in
September 2023, Plaintiffs have made no showing whatsoever that the entry of the dismissal of their complaint was the result of "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect," which is what is required for Section 473(b) relief to be afforded. Plaintiffs assert that the motion should be granted because the UIM arbitration/mediation is completed. But that is not a proper basis for Section 473(b) relief.