Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV00092, Date: 2024-09-11 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 23PSCV00092    Hearing Date: September 11, 2024    Dept: G

Plaintiffs House of God’s Reward and Charlie Yang’s Motion for Relief Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 473

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs House of God’s Reward and Charlie Yang’s Motion for Relief Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 473 is GRANTED.

The court intends to set new Trial and Final Status Conference dates at the hearing on September 11, 2024.

BACKGROUND

This is an action for fraud, conversion, and libel. In July 2021, Defendants Li Xia Hao and Haikun Sun met with Plaintiff Charlie Yang and others for the purposes of helping Sun obtain an R-1 visa. Yang then formed House of God’s Reward (HOGR) while Hao allegedly promised to use Hao’s inactive church, The United Chinese Christian Church in Los Angeles (UCCCLA), to help Sun. Hao also allegedly allowed HOGR to utilize UCCCLA’s Chase Bank account. After Sun obtained the R-1 visa, Hao told Yang and HOGR to leave UCCCLA and allegedly converted $45,424.23 in funds that had been donated to UCCCLA for HOGR’s benefit. Sun also made comments accusing Yang of taking advantage of Hao by using UCCCLA’s license and questioning Yang’s capabilities as a pastor.

On January 11, 2023, HOGR and Yang filed a complaint against UCCCLA, Hao, Sun, and Does 1-50, alleging the following causes of action: (1) conversion, (2) fraud and deceit, (3) unjust enrichment, and (4) libel per se.

On June 6, 2023, HOGR and Yang’s counsel failed to appear for a case management conference and the court set an OSC Re: Sanctions for Plaintiff’s Failure to Appear/OSC Re: Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute. On June 27, 2023, the court discharged the OSC after HOGR and Yang’s counsel appeared.

On July 24, 2024, HOGR and Yang’s counsel failed to appear for a final status conference and the court granted an oral motion by UCCCLA, Hao, and Sun to dismiss this action with prejudice.

On August 19, 2024, HOGR and Yang filed the present motion. A hearing on the present motion is set for September 11, 2024.

ANALYSIS

HOGR and Yang seek to vacate the court’s dismissal of the present action on the grounds of counsel’s inadvertence. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS their motion.

Legal Standard

Whenever an application for relief from dismissal is made no more than six months after entry of the judgment of dismissal, 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 vacate any dismissal entered against the moving party 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).) The court shall grant relief if the moving party’s counsel provides a “sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) “The court shall, whenever relief is granted based on an attorney's affidavit of fault, direct the attorney to pay reasonable compensatory legal fees and costs to opposing counsel or parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) “The six-month time limit for granting statutory relief is jurisdictional and the court may not consider a motion for relief made after that period has elapsed.” (Manson, Iver & York v. Black (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 36, 42.)

Discussion

In this case, HOGR and Yang’s counsel states counsel failed to appear for the final status conference on July 24, 2024, due to counsel experiencing an acute infection and severe cold on July 21, 2024, that left counsel bedridden. (Minna Decl., ¶ 3.) Counsel also states counsel inadvertently calendared the final status conference for July 26, 2024. (Minna Decl., ¶ 4.) Based on the declaration of counsel, the court finds the dismissal of the present action was the result of counsel’s excusable neglect and inadvertence.

Accordingly, HOGR and Yang’s motion is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS HOGR and Yang’s motion to vacate the dismissal of HOGR and Yang’s action.

The court intends to set new Trial and Final Status Conference dates at the hearing on September 11, 2024.