Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 21PSCV00141, Date: 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21PSCV00141    Hearing Date: January 31, 2023    Dept: G

Plaintiff Julio C. Sandoval’s Motion to Set Aside Dismissal of Complaint Entered on January 3, 2023

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Julio C. Sandoval’s Motion to Set Aside Dismissal is GRANTED and the dismissal entered January 3, 2023 is set aside.

BACKGROUND

This is an action to quiet title involving a condominium unit on Aspen Village Way in West Covina (hereafter, West Covina condo). On September 25, 2005, Plaintiff Julio C. Sandoval purchased the West Covina condo from the Luna Family Trust. On December 5, Plaintiff’s wife, Laura C. Sandoval, quitclaimed any interest in the West Covina condo to Plaintiff. In 2007, Plaintiff had difficulty making mortgage payments and was faced with foreclosure proceedings. At that time, Plaintiff received flyer from Marengo Associates, promising to save homeowners’ homes from foreclosure. Plaintiff contacted Marengo Associates and was promised they would file an injunction to stop the foreclosure. From October 9, 2007 to February 15, 2011, a total of twenty-two grant deeds were recorded, conveying interest in the West Covina condo to individuals affiliated with Marengo Associates. Plaintiff alleges Marengo Associates never filed the promised injunction and failed to pay to assessment fees.

On February 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed a verified complaint against Marengo Associates; Summers Dream; Frank Daniel Edwards; Regina Elaine Jackson; Hector Jose Rivera; Carole Nadine Lawson; William Jefferson Powell; Shabbir H. Rangwala; Shabbir H. Rangwala as trustee of the Rangwala Family Trust Dated November 12, 1998; Marvin Lucas; Earl William Smith; Bryant Lamar Johnson; Cassandra Erin Bradford; Kenneth Jason Whitaker; Yvonne Joyce Kellner; Tanisha Denise Angel; Keven C. Hurlic; Tyrone Wilbur Hatcher; Garrett Aaron Taylor; Shawn Evan Hawk; Jose Martinez; Elva Lopes; all persons unknown claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the complaint adverse to Plaintiff’s title; and Does 1-20 (collectively, Defendants), alleging (1) cancellation of grant deeds, (2) quiet title, (3) fraud, and (4) declaratory relief. On May 10, 2022, the court granted Plaintiff’s request to serve Defendants by publication. Notice was published May 27, June 3, June 10, and June 17.

On August 1, 2022, default was entered against all Defendants. On January 3, Plaintiff dismissed the entire action without prejudice.

On January 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed the present motion. A hearing on the motion is set for January 31.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff seeks to set aside Plaintiff’s own dismissal of the entire action on the grounds of attorney mistake. The court agrees.

Legal Standard

Whenever an application for relief from dismissal is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by the moving party’s sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, the court may set aside the dismissal unless the court finds that the dismissal was not in fact caused by the moving party’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., §473, subd. (b).)

Courts liberally grant motions to vacate dismissals when relief is sought promptly and the opposing party is not prejudiced as the law strongly favors resolution on the merits. (See Kramer v. Traditional Escrow, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 13, 28.) Courts only require “slight evidence” to support vacating a dismissal and resolve all doubts in favor of the party seeking relief. (See ibid.) However, “[t]he only occasion for the application of section 473 is where a party is unexpectedly placed in a situation to his injury without fault or negligence of his own and against which ordinary prudence could not have guarded.” (Hearn v. Howard (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1206, quoting Elms v. Elms (1946) 72 Cal.App.2d 508, 513.)

Discussion

In this case, Plaintiff argues counsel erred in dismissing the entire action when counsel only intended to dismiss Does 1-20 in advance of applying for a default judgment against the remaining Defendants. (Sandoval Decl., ¶ 1-5.) The court finds Plaintiff’s motion is timely. Furthermore, in considering the fact that the request for dismissal form had both boxes checked—one to dismiss the entire action and another to only dismiss Does 1-20—and the fact that the request form was accompanied by filings to support an application for default judgment, the court determines the dismissal was in error and exercises its discretion to set aside the dismissal.  

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to aside the dismissal entered January 3, 2023.