Judge Peter A. Hernandez, Case Number: 19PSCV01009, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 19PSCV01009, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19PSCV01009 Hearing Date: August 25, 2023 Dept: K

Plaintiffs Huan Shen, Faqiong Feng, Yingbing Gu, Bo Wen Hu, Ren Yao Xu, Yuan Yong and Yu Wei Zeng’s Ex Parte Application for an Order Granting Relief from Order of Dismissal Pursuant to C.C.P. Section 473(b) is GRANTED. The case is ordered restored to the civil active list.

Background

This is a wage and hour/employment discrimination lawsuit.

On May 5, 2021, Plaintiffs Huan Shen, Faqiong Feng, Yingbing Gu, Bo Wen Hu, Ren Yao Xu, Yuan Yong and Yu Wei Zeng (together, “Plaintiffs”) filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of action against ACI Group USA Inc. (“ACI Group”), USSAV Inc. (“USSAV”), Tissuesco Group (“Tissuesco”), Tissuesco Bell Gardens Ltd. (“Tissuesco Bell Gardens”), Tissuesco Brea Ltd. (“Tissuesco Brea”), Tissuesco Carson Ltd. (“Tissuesco Carson”), Tissuesco Chino Ltd., (“Tissuesco Chino”), Tissuesco Commerce Ltd. (“Tissuesco Commerce”), Tissuesco Compton Ltd. (“Tissuesco Compton”), Tissuesco Costa Mesa Ltd. (“Tissuesco Costa Mesa”), Tissuesco Culver City Ltd. (“Tissuesco Culver City”), Tissuesco El Monte Ltd. (“Tissuesco El Monte”), Tissuesco Fountain Valley Ltd. (“Tissuesco Fountain Valley”), Tissuesco Gardena Ltd. (“Tissuesco Gardena”), Tissuesco Hawthorne Ltd., (“Tissuesco Hawthorne”), Tissuesco Huntington Beach Ltd. (“Tissuesco Huntington Beach”), Tissuesco Inglewood Ltd. (“Tissuesco Inglewood”), Tissuesco Lawndale Ltd. (“Tissuesco Lawndale”), Tissuesco Long Beach Ltd. (“Tissuesco Long Beach”), Tissuesco Montclair Ltd. “Tissuesco Montclair”), Tissuesco Monterey Park Ltd.(“Tissuesco Monterey Park”), Tissuesco North Hollywood Ltd. (“Tissuesco North Hollywood”), Tissuesco Norwalk Ltd. (“Tissuesco Norwalk”), Tissuesco Ontario Ltd. (“Tissuesco Ontario”), Tissuesco Operation Inc. (“Tissuesco Operation”), Tissuesco Paramount Ltd. (“Tissuesco Paramount”), Tissuesco Pomona Ltd. (“Tissuesco Pomona”), Tissuesco Rancho Cucamonga Ltd. (“Tissuesco Rancho Cucamonga”), Tissuesco Riverside Ltd. (“Tissuesco Riverside”), Tissuesco Rosemead Ltd. (“Tissuesco Rosemead”), Tissuesco San Bernardino Ltd. (“Tissuesco San Bernardino”), Tissuesco San Gabriel Ltd. “Tissuesco San Gabriel”), Tissuesco San Pedro Ltd. (“Tissuesco San Pedro”), Tissuesco Santa Fe Springs Ltd. (“Tissuesco Santa Fe Springs”), Tissuesco Seventh Ltd. (“Tissuesco Seventh”), Tissuesco South Gate Ltd. (“Tissuesco South Gate”), Tissuesco Torrance Ltd. (“Tissuesco Torrance”), Tissuesco Wall Street Ltd. (“Tissuesco Wall Street”), Thomas Chen (“Chen”) and Does 1-20 for:

1. Failure to Pay Wages (Cal. Lab. Code § 204)

2. Failure to Pay Overtime Wages (Cal. Lab. Code § 510)

3. Failure to Pay Wages for Missed Rest Periods (Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7)

4. Failure to Pay Wages for Missed Meal Periods (Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7)

5. Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses (Cal. Lab. Code § 2802)

6. Failure to Provide Accurate, Itemized Wage Statements (Cal. Lab. Code § 226)

7. Waiting Time Penalties (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201, 202, 203)

8. Discrimination on the Basis of Race, National Origin, and/or Color in Violation of FEHA (Cal. Gov. Code § 12940)

9. Violation of California Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.)

On August 10, 2021, Plaintiffs dismissed Tissuesco Brea, Tissuesco Carson, Tissuesco Compton, Tissuesco Costa Mesa, Tissuesco Culver City, Tissuesco Gardena, Tissuesco Hawthorne, Tissuesco Huntington Beach, Tissuesco Inglewood, Tissuesco Lawndale, Tissuesco Long Beach, Tissuesco Monterey Park, Tissuesco North Hollywood, Tissuesco Norwalk, Tissuesco Ontario, Tissuesco Operation, Tissuesco Paramount, Tissuesco Rancho Cucamonga, Tissuesco Riverside, Tissuesco Rosemead, Tissuesco San Bernardino, Tissuesco San Pedro, Tissuesco Santa Fe Springs, Tissuesco Seventh, Tissuesco South Gate, Tissuesco Torrance, Tissuesco Wall Street and USSAV, without prejudice.

On March 16, 2022, Chen’s default was entered. On March 29, 2022, ACI Group’s, Tissuesco’s, Tissuesco San Gabriel’s, Tissuesco Chino’s, Tissuesco El Monte’s, Tissuesco Pomona’s, Tissuesco Bell Garden’s, Tissuesco Montclair’s, Tissuesco Fountain Valley’s and Tissuesco Commerce’s defaults were entered.

On December 6, 2022, the court ordered Plaintiff’s FAC dismissed, without prejudice.

Legal Standard

A motion for mandatory relief must be “made no more than six months after entry of judgment” and be “accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) The attorney affidavit of fault must contain a “straightforward admission of fault.” (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 610.) The attorney affidavit of fault, however, need not include an explanation of the reasons for the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence surprise or neglect. (Martin Potts & Assocs., Inc. v. Corsair, LLC (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 432, 438-441.) “Relief is mandatory when a complying affidavit is filed, even if the attorney’s neglect is inexcusable.” (Rodrigues v. Superior Court (2005) 127 Cal.App.4^th 1027, 1033.) Relief must be granted “unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)

Discussion

Plaintiffs seek to set aside the court’s December 6, 2022 dismissal on the basis of Code of Civil Procedure § 473, subdivision (b) attorney affidavit of fault.

Plaintiff’s counsel Ronald Norman (“Norman”) attests that his failure to appear on December 6, 2022 for the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal because the hearing date was inadvertently never inputted into the law firm’s calendar (per the firm’s standard operating procedure), such that neither counsel or the paralegal on this case were aware of the hearing date. (Norman, ¶ 4.)

The motion is granted, and the case is ordered restored to the civil active list.