Judge Stephanie M. Bowick, Case Number: 23STCV24506, Date: 2025-01-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephanie M. Bowick, Case: 23STCV24506, Date: 2025-01-28 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 19 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
If you desire to submit on a tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 19 before 08:00 a.m. on the day of the motion hearing. The e-mail address for submitting is SMCDept19@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail must contain the case name and number, and that you submit. For example, "Smith v. Jones BC551124, submit". The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent.

PLEASE NOTE, The above e-mail address is only to inform the Court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries or correspondence will not receive a response.

Case Number: 23STCV24506 Hearing Date: January 28, 2025 Dept: 19

RULING

After consideration of the briefing filed and oral argument at the hearing, Plaintiff Raul Gandara’s Motion Set Aside Dismissal Pursuant to CCP 473 (b) is GRANTED.

Defaults are reinstated against both Defendants this date.

The Court sets a Status Conference for April 8, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 19 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. Plaintiff is ordered to appear in-person or remotely via LACourt Connect.

At the hearing, Plaintiff must be prepared to tell the Court how he wishes to proceed with the action, including whether he will seek entry of a default judgment by submitting a default judgment package pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, or by requesting a default judgment prove-up hearing. (See Code of Civil Procedure 585).

The Court reminds Plaintiff that, while he has the absolute right to represent himself, an in propria persona litigant is still held to the same restrictive rules of civil procedure as a licensed attorney and he is expected to know those procedural rules. (Burnete v. La Casa Dana Apartments (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1267; see Bianco v. California Highway Patrol (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1125-1126.)

Counsel for Plaintiff (limited scope) to give notice.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a breach of contract action. Plaintiff Raul Gandara (“Plaintiff”) brings suit against Defendants Carlos De La Sotarriba and Martha Marquez De Ita (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging the following cause of action:

1. Breach of Contract.

On March 19, 2024, Defendants’ defaults were entered.

Accordingly, the Court set an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for May 13, 2024 and ordered the Clerk to give notice. (March 19, 2024 Minute Order, p. 1.)

On April 5, 2024, the Court also set a Status Conference for May 13, 2024, ordered Plaintiff to appear in-person or remotely via LACourtConnect, and ordered the Clerk to give notice. (April 5, 2024 Minute Order, p. 1.)

At the May 13, 2024 hearings, the Court dismissed the action because, despite the order for him to appear and proper service of both the March 19, 2024 order and the April 5, 2024 order (collectively, the “Orders”), Plaintiff failed to appear. (May 13, 2024 Minute Order, p. 1.)

On June 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion Set Aside Dismissal Pursuant to CCP 473 (b) (the “Motion”).

GROUNDS FOR MOTION

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), Plaintiff moves for an order setting aside the dismissal of the action on the grounds that his failure to appear on May 13, 2024 was due to his mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, and the Court incorrectly stated in the May 13, 2024 order that Plaintiff had not filed any default judgment package, requested a default judgment prove-up hearing under Code of Civil Procedure 585, or made any other recent efforts to prosecute this action.

DISCUSSION

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) provides, in relevant part:

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. Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b).)

It is well established that Code of Civil Procedure section 473 is remedial, and its provisions to be liberally construed so as to dispose of cases upon their merits. (See, e.g., Laguna Village, Inc. v. Laborers' Internat. Union of North America (1983) 35 Cal.3d 174, 182; Taliaferro v. Taliaferro (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 216, 220.)

Plaintiff moves to vacate the dismissal of the action on the grounds that his failure to appear on May 13, 2024 was due to his mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, and the Court incorrectly stated in the May 13, 2024 order that Plaintiff had not filed any default judgment package, requested a default judgment prove-up hearing under Code of Civil Procedure 585, or made any other recent efforts to prosecute this action.

As an initial matter, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s argument that the Court incorrectly stated in the May 13, 2024 order that Plaintiff had not filed any default judgment package, requested a default judgment prove-up hearing under Code of Civil Procedure 585, or made any other recent efforts to prosecute this action.

While Plaintiff correctly argues that he filed requests for entry of default, which were entered on March 19, 2024, Plaintiff never filed any of the documentation and evidence required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subdivision (a), nor did he ever request a default judgment prove-up. Further, he failed to appear for hearings as ordered and noticed before dismissal of the action.

However, after consideration of the declaration of Raul Gandara filed in support of the Motion, and given that Code of Civil Procedure section 473 must be liberally construed so as to dispose of cases upon their merits, the Court finds that Plaintiff provides a sufficient basis for relief from the dismissal. Plaintiff attests that he indeed traveled to the courthouse on May 13, 2024 for the hearings, but, due to a failure to give himself enough time to travel, did not arrive until after 9:00am with the Clerk informing him that his matter had already been called. (Raul Gandara Decl., ¶ 4.)

The Court also considers that Plaintiff did file a Case Management Statement on March 8, 2024 and, less than two months before the May 13, 2024 hearings, did obtain entry of Defendants’ defaults.

For these reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.