Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV46859, Date: 2022-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV46859    Hearing Date: December 19, 2022    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Plaintiffs Christian Ahumada and Hayley Guzman’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal is GRANTED.

Legal Standard

              CCP § 473(b) provides that a court may “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.” In addition, a court must vacate a default or dismissal when a motion for relief under Section 473, subdivision (b) is filed timely and accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect “unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect.” (CCP § 473(b).) 

              The party or the legal representative must seek such relief “within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” (CCP § 473(b); see Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 980 [“because more than six months had elapsed from the entry of default, and hence relief under section 473 was unavailable”]; People v. The North River Ins. Co. (2011) 200 Ca.App.4^th 712, 721 [motion for relief under section 473 must be brought “within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months”]). “The six-month limit is mandatory; a court has no authority to grant relief under section 473, subdivision (b), unless an application is made within the six-month period.”  (Arambula v. Union Carbide Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 333, 340, citations omitted.) 

Discussion

              Here, Plaintiffs provide the declaration of their counsel, Daniel Azizi (“Counsel”). Counsel avers that he failed to appear at the trial due to a calendaring issue. Specifically, counsel’s office was transitioning to a new calendaring system, and through mistake and inadvertence did not transfer the case to the new system. Thus, the trial date was not calendared. (Azizi Decl., ¶¶5-9.) The Court finds that Counsel has demonstrated his failure to appear at the trial was a result of mistake, inadvertence, and neglect on his part. As the motion was filed within the six-month time frame, the motion must be granted.

Conclusion

              Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.