Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Case Number: 24STCV07456, Date: 2024-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Randolph M. Hammock, Case: 24STCV07456, Date: 2024-10-03 Tentative Ruling

On July 23, 2024, Plaintiff was late to appear at the Case Management Conference. (See 04/23/2024 Minute Order.) On September 4, 2024, the court held a hearing on Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons. As reflected in the September 4th Minute Order, Plaintiff was again not present when the matter was called, and was accordingly “admonished because she was late to both hearings and [was] informed that the Court will consider sanctioning.” (See 09/04/2024 Minute Order.)

On September 9, 2024, a second Case Management Conference was held. Plaintiff again was not present when the case was called. (See 09/09/2024 Minute Order.) Accordingly, the court ordered the Complaint dismissed without prejudice pursuant to CCP sections 583.150 and/or 583.410, Government Code section 68608 (b) and/or LASC Local Rules 3.24 et seq. (Id.)

Plaintiff then appeared in court on September 9th at approximately 9:20 AM, when she was informed that the case had been dismissed. The court instructed Plaintiff to move for relief from dismissal under C.C.P. 473(b) and explain reasons for her failure to timely appear. (See 09/09/24 Minute Order, Number 2.)

Plaintiff now moves to set aside the order of dismissal under CCP section 473(b). Under the discretionary provisions of section 473(b), 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.” (CCP § 473(b).) To obtain relief under this provision, the application for relief must be made “within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding.” (Ibid.) [FN 3]

Plaintiff states that she was late to appear at the September 9th hearing because she was “providing care for a disabled member of her household who is a minor.” (Mtn. 1: 23.) She continues that she “attempted to give notice of a delay in her arrival to the courts several times when it was safe to do so while en route to the courthouse,” but “was unable to be connected to the courtroom.” (Id. 24-27.) [FN 4]

Here, mindful of the policy favoring relief from dismissals where there is no prejudice to the opposing party, the court will provide Plaintiff relief. (See Even Zohar Constr. & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC, (2015) 61 Cal. 4th 830, 839 [“The general underlying purpose of section 473(b) is to promote the determination of actions on their merits”]; see also Austin v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2016) 244 Cal. App. 4th 918, 929 [“[b]ecause the law favors disposing of cases on their merits, ‘any doubts in applying section 473 must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default [citations].’”].) Importantly, there is no evidence Defendant will suffer prejudice if the dismissal is set aside as this early stage.

However, Plaintiff is again admonished that the failure to timely appear at any single hearing going forward will result in a dismissal of the action. Plaintiff must make any necessary arrangements so that she can timely appear at all future hearings and comply with all future orders of this court.

Judge of the Superior Court

FN 1 - Plaintiff filed two proofs of service on September 30, 2024. It is unclear from these documents if or when service on Defendants was completed. Plaintiff will be required to make an offer of proof at the hearing demonstrating that she properly and timely served Defendants with the instant motion. If she cannot, the motion will be denied or continued to allow Plaintiff to effectuate service of this motion.

FN 2 - Plaintiff should note that it appears that Defendant has not yet been properly served with the Summons and Complaint in this action, as the Defendant’s motion to quash the prior serve was granted on 9/4/24.

FN 3 - Section 473, subdivision (b) also provides for mandatory relief upon a showing by attorney declaration of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.” As Plaintiff is in pro per, the mandatory provision does not apply.

FN 4 - These statements appear in Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities. Plaintiff then states in declaration that the “facts in the motion are within [Plaintiff’s] own knowledge…” and concludes “under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct…” (Richardson Decl.)

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept49@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.