Judge Stephen P. Pfahler, Case Number: 18STCV05865, Date: 2025-01-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 18STCV05865, Date: 2025-01-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV05865 Hearing Date: January 8, 2025 Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 1-8-25 (a/f 5-6-25 via 12-10-24 ex parte order)

Case # 18STCV05865

Trial Date: N/A

VACATE DISMISSAL

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Martin and Martha Lara

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/ Defendants, Ricardo Lopez, et al.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Dismiss the Entire Action

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiffs Martin and Martha Lara began renting certain premises from Defendants Pedro, Ricardo, David, Jose, Esteban and/or the Lopez Family Trust in June 2007. In 2017, Plaintiffs made complaint about the habitability of the premises which led to efforts to force Plaintiffs from the City of Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance protected premises.

On November 21, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a complaint for (1) Retaliation — Civ. Code § 1942.5; (2) Breach of the Warranty of Habitability; (3) Invasion of Privacy; (4) Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment — Civ. Code § 1940.2; (5) Violation of the Bane Act — Civ. Code § 52.1; (6) Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code § 51; (7) Violation of the Fair Housing Act; (8) Illegal Rent Increase - LAMC § 151.04 (9) Tortious Negligence; and (10) Unfair Business Practices — Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq. On July 15, 2020, the court overruled the demurrer to the complaint. Defendants answered the complaint on August 17, 2020.

On July 29, 2021, Plaintiffs dismissed defendant Pedro Lopez without prejudice. On August 13, 2024, the court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the entire complaint.

RULING: Denied.

Plaintiffs Martin and Martha Lara move to vacate the August 13, 2024, dismissal of the action under the attorney mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). Plaintiffs alternatively request the court sua sponte reconsider its ruling on the basis that all defendants were originally named in the complaint, and the actual requirement of the Lopez Family Trust participate in the action as an indispensable party. Plaintiffs maintain an inability to bring the trust into the action precluded such action and any effective judgment against the trust would have been factually void. Defendants in opposition counter that the plain language in the statute bars relief for a dismissal due to failure to name an indispensable party. Defendants challenge the sufficiency of the basis of relief. Defendant also challenges any reconsideration of the prior ruling. The court electronic filing system shows no reply on file at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff. The court reserves the right to take the matter under submission.

The court considers the plain language of the operative statute for relief: “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. ... [T]his section shall not lengthen the time within which an action shall be brought to trial pursuant to Section 583.310.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) “An action shall be brought to trial within five years after the action is commenced against the defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.310.)

The court dismissed the complaint due to the failure to timely bring the action to trial with all indispensable parties. The trial deadline left no option to extend the trial date in order to add the indispensable party back into the action. Allowing relief on grounds of Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) would clearly constitute an improper extension of the trial cutoff, which is statutorily barred. The motion is therefore denied on this basis.

Even if the court disregarded the clear statutory bar, the court also finds no declaration of fault from the actual handling attorney, Noah Grynberg—the attorney purportedly responsible for the dismissal. A mistake in reviewing the action over the necessity of all indispensable parties constitutes an arguably valid oversight, but again the court declines to find any basis for an exception to the plain language of the statute.

Finally, on the request for reconsideration, the court finds no basis of support. The motion lacks any basis of authority for reconsideration, including a timely application or change in the law or facts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008.) Doubling down on argument regarding the impropriety of the finding of the trustee as an indispensable party and reiteration of the opinion for the propriety of the action without the estate constitutes improper re-argument over interpretation rather than an actual change in the law. (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.) The court undertook extensive discussion regarding the necessity of the estate and appointment of a trustee in its August 13, 2024, order. Again, the court finds no change in the law regarding estates, trustees, and indispensable parties. The disagreement requires appellate review rather than repeated disagreement at the trial court level.

The motion is DENIED for all of the reasons addressed.

Motion to Tax Costs on calendar for May 6, 2025.

Plaintiffs to provide notice.