Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: BC701802, Date: 2023-03-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC701802 Hearing Date: March 22, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
Plaintiff’s
Untimely Motion to Set Aside the Dismissal is DENIED.
Legal
Standard
Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) provides for mandatory and discretionary relief
from dismissal. The discretionary relief prong states: “The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or
her legal representative from a … dismissal… taken against him or her through
his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Application
for this relief … shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case
exceeding six months, after the … dismissal … was taken.” (CCP section 473(b).) The mandatory prong states: “The court shall, whenever an application for relief is made no more
than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is
accompanied by an attorney's sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, vacate any … resulting … dismissal entered
against his or her client….” (Id.)
Discussion
Plaintiff moves to set aside the
dismissal under CCP section 473(b) due to attorney mistake, inadvertence, or
neglect. Plaintiff argues the initial request for relief was via a Declaration
by Shabnam Sarani, Esq. filed with the Court on September 14, 2021, explaining
that Plaintiff’s Counsel missed the hearing due to an inadvertent calendaring
mistake. Plaintiff received no response from the Court to this Declaration. A
second Declaration by Shabnam Sarani, Esq. was filed with the Court on November
1, 2022, again explaining the calendaring mistake, and apologizing to the Court
for the inadvertent error. Again, no response from the Court was received to
the second Declaration.
However, the motion is not
timely filed under CCP section 473. The action was dismissed on September 14, 2021.
This Motion to Set Aside the Dismissal was filed on January 9, 2023, well past six
months after the Court dismissed the complaint. The Court does not have
authority under CCP section 473(b) to excuse Plaintiff’s noncompliance with the
six-month time limit. (See Arambula v. Union Carbide Corp. (2005) 128
Cal.App.4th 333, 345.)
Plaintiff argues she substantially
complied with the six-month deadline to request relief by filing a signed
Declaration with the Court attesting to the error and apologizing to the Court
the very same day as the dismissal was notice. While
Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration attesting to attorney fault, she was
required to file an application for relief under CCP section 473(b).
Plaintiff has cited to no authority for her proposition that the six-month time
limit under CCP section 473(b) can be excused when there is substantial
compliance, other than arguing generally that: “Where a reasonable
attempt has been made to comply with a statute in good faith,...the doctrine of
substantial compliance holds that the statute may be deemed satisfied.” (People
v. Green (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 360, 371.) However, in light of the
court’s ruling in Arambula, that the six-month time limit is jurisdictional and must
be strictly enforced (Arambula, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at 345), and without any other authority stating
substantial compliance may suffice, the Court must deny the motion as untimely.
Conclusion
Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s untimely Motion to Set Aside the Dismissal is DENIED.
Moving
party is ordered to give notice.