Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 22STCV01888, Date: 2025-04-15 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 22STCV01888    Hearing Date: April 15, 2025    Dept: 34

Plaintiff Brian Williams’ Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal is DENIED.

Background

            On January 18, 2022, Plaintiff Brian Williams (“Plaintiff”), in propria persona, filed a complaint against Defendants City of Hawthorne, Hawthorne Police Department, and multiple other defendants.

            On July 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

            On February 9, 2024, the court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint.

            On April 19, 2024, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s FAC without prejudice.

On May 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).

            On October 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal. No opposition or other responsive pleading has been filed.

Legal Standard

The court has broad discretion to relieve a party from an order taken against him or her due to excusable neglect, but that discretion can be exercised only if the party establishes a proper ground for relief, by the proper procedure and within the set time limits. Code of Civil Procedure section 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. . . . No affidavit or declaration of merits shall be required of the moving party. Notwithstanding any other requirements of this section, the court shall, whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, vacate any (1) resulting default entered by the clerk against his or her client, and which will result in entry of a default judgment, or (2) resulting default judgment or dismissal entered against his or her client, unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. . . .”

            Section 473(b) provides for two distinct types of relief. “Under the discretionary relief provision, on a showing of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,” the court has discretion to allow relief from a “judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against” a party or his or her attorney. Under the mandatory relief provision, on the other hand, upon a showing by attorney declaration of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect,” the court shall vacate any “resulting default judgment or dismissal entered.” (Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 615–616.)

Discussion

            Plaintiff seeks to set aside the dismissal of Plaintiff’s FAC on April 19, 2024. (Motion, at pp. 1-2.) Although Plaintiff invokes the discretionary provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b), the motion fails to connect the statutory grounds of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” to any specific facts. Plaintiff’s declaration appears to assert that Plaintiff is undergoing financial hardship, but the motion does not explain how this satisfies the standard for discretionary relief. While the motion includes the legal standard for a continuance and for discretionary relief, it lacks any argument or analysis tying the facts in the declaration to the applicable legal standard. As a result, the court cannot make the required finding to vacate the dismissal.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Brian Williams’ Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal is DENIED.