Judge: Sarah J. Heidel, Case: 23BBCV01686, Date: 2024-03-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV01686    Hearing Date: March 8, 2024    Dept: V

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT 

DEPARTMENT V 

MOVING PARTIES:             Plaintiffs U-Haul Co. of California, U-Haul Co. of Arizona, and Arcoa Risk Retention Group, Inc. 

RESPONDING PARTY:       N/A - Unopposed 

Plaintiffs’ Motion To Set Aside And Vacate The Court’s December 21, 2023 Dismissal Of Plaintiffs’ Complaint 

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion.  

BACKGROUND 

This case stems from allegations of a staged motor vehicle collision involving Hayk Aleksandrovich, Armen Margaryan, and Garik Grigoryan (Defendants), that occurred on January 22, 2023. (Complaint, ¶ 25.) U-Haul Co. of California, U-Haul Co. of Arizona, and Arcoa (Plaintiffs) file suit on July 25, 2023 alleging seven causes of action against Defendants.  

On December 21, 2023, the case was dismissed without prejudice after Plaintiffs failed to appear for a scheduled Case Management Conference (CMC), Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint, and Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution.  Plaintiffs filed a Motion To Set Aside And Vacate The Court’s December 21, 2023 Dismissal Of Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Motion). No opposition has been filed.  

LEGAL STANDARD 

CCP Section 473(b) governs motions to vacate based on mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect and provides: “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.” (See CCP Section 473(b).) 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on July 25, 2023.  On July 26, 2023, the Court set a hearing on October 3, 2023, for Order to Show Cause re: Failure to Filed a Proof of Service which was mailed to counsel at the address provided on the complaint.  Plaintiffs failed to appear at the October 3, 2023 hearing and the court set a further hearing for December 21, 2023 (Case Management Conference (CMC), Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint, and Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution).  Plaintiff failed to appear against on December 21, 2023, and the court accordingly dismissed the case without prejudice.  Plaintiffs now move to set aside and vacate the court’s order.  In support of their motion, Plaintiffs provide the Declaration of Dan A. Everakes (Everakes Decl.) which states that although the notice for the December 21, 2023 was mailed to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s office, counsel never “received” the notice and therefore never was able to calendar the notice. (Everakes Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs argue that the failure to appear was accordingly due to mistake and inadvertence, which it discovered after receiving the notice of dismissal. (Everakes Decl., ¶¶ 4, 6.)  

As the court is aware, California has a strong public policy in favor of deciding cases on the merits, particularly where the opposing party has suffered no prejudice. (Oliveros¿v. County of Los Angeles¿(2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1389, 1398-1399. Also see CCP § 583.130.) The Court accordingly grants the Motion.  Plaintiffs’ counsel is advised, however, that failure to receive notices that are mailed to its address of record will not be considered adequate justification for failure to appear in this matter in the future.   

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the court grants Plaintiffs’ Motion To Set Aside And Vacate The Court’s December 21, 2023 Dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.