Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV06894, Date: 2024-11-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV06894 Hearing Date: November 15, 2024 Dept: 29
Campbell v. Joseph
22STCV06894
Plaintiff’s motion to vacate dismissal
Tentative
The motion is granted.
Background
On February 24, 2022, Macy Lea Campbell (“Plaintiff”)
filed a complaint against Nathaniel Joseph, Keante James Hoyett, and Leilani
Fuller, and Does 1 through 30, asserting causes of action for negligence and
negligent entrustment arising out of an alleged automobile accident on March 30,
2020.
On filing, the case was assigned a Final Status
Conference date of August 10, 2023, and a trial date of August 24, 2023.
Plaintiff did not appear at the Final Status Conference
or trial. Based on Plaintiff’s failure
to appear at trial, the Court dismissed the entire action without prejudice on
August 24, 2023.
On October 14,
2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to vacate the order of dismissal.
No opposition
has been filed.
Legal Standard
Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) provides
for both discretionary and mandatory relief from dismissal.
As to discretionary relief, the statute states: “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 through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect.” (Code of Civil Procedure § 473,
subd. (b).)
The statute also provides for mandatory relief from dismissal,
default, or default judgment:
“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 … unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was
not in fact caused by the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
neglect.”
(Ibid.)
A request for discretionary relief under section 473,
subdivision (b), must be made (subject to certain exceptions) “within a
reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months.” (Ibid.) A request for mandatory relief must be made
within six months. (Ibid.)
After the expiration of the six month period of
section 473, subdivision (b) (or when for any other reason there is no
statutory basis to obtain relief), courts have “the inherent authority to
vacate a default and default judgment on equitable grounds such as extrinsic
fraud or extrinsic mistake.” (Bae v.
T.D. Service Co. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 89, 97; see also, e.g., Rappleyea
v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 981-982.)
“Extrinsic fraud” generally involves some act
that kept the party seeking relief “in ignorance of the action or proceeding”
or “fraudulently prevented” the party “from presenting his claim or
defense.” (Kulchar v. Kulchar
(1969) 1 Cal.3d 467, 471; see also, e.g., Bae, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at
p. 97.)
“Extrinsic mistake” is defined broadly and encompasses “almost any set of extrinsic circumstances
which deprive a party of a fair adversary hearing.” (In re Marriage of Park (1980) 27
Cal.3d 337, 342; see also, e.g., Rappleyea,
supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 981.) There need not
necessarily be a mistake “in the strict sense.”
(Park, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 342.) But a mistake
is intrinsic, and not extrinsic, when “a party’s own negligence allows the …
mistake to occur.” (Kramer v.
Traditional Escrow (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 13, 29.) Intrinsic mistakes relate to the merits of
the case, such that granting relief would improperly allow a party to
relitigate the case. (Kulchar, supra,
1 Cal. 3d at pp. 472-73.) Examples of
intrinsic mistakes, or intrinsic fraud, are perjury, failing to complete
discovery, or failing to prepare adequately for trial. (Ibid.)
Courts apply a stringent,
three-part test for equitable relief pursuant to the inherent authority of the
court. A party seeking relief on
equitable grounds must show (1) “a satisfactory excuse”; (2) “a meritorious
case”; and (3) "diligence in seeking” relief. (Rappleyea, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p.
982; see also, e.g., Kramer, supra, 56 Cal.App.5th at p. 29; 1 Weil
& Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (2024), ¶
5:435.)
Discussion
Plaintiff requests the dismissal of her complaint be
vacated on equitable grounds. The Court
applies the three-part stringent test for equitable relief set forth in the case
law.
First, the Court finds that this case fits comfortably
within the broad definition of extrinsic mistake. Because of external circumstances unrelated
to the process of the case, Plaintiff’s attorney lost track of the trial
date. (Aziev Decl., ¶¶ 9-11.) This had the effect of depriving Plaintiff of
the opportunity to litigate her case on the merits. This is a classic case of neglect – and specifically
excusable neglect. This was not an
intrinsic mistake or the result of any negligence by Plaintiff herself. (See Kulchar, supra, 1 Cal.3d at pp. 471-473;
Manson, Iver York v. Black (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 36, 47; see also Sporn
v. Home Depot USA (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1294, 1301 [referring to papers
that were “lost, stolen, forwarded to the wrong person, or eaten by the dog”].) Extrinsic mistake is a satisfactory excuse supporting
relief on equitable grounds.
Second, without making any ruling on the merits, the
Court finds that Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence for the Court to
conclude that she has a potentially meritorious case. (Aziev Decl., ¶¶ 1-3, 12.)
Third, the Court finds that Plaintiff acted diligently in
seeking relief once the mistake was discovered.
(Aziev Decl., ¶ 11.)
Accordingly, the motion is granted.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to vacate, on
equitable grounds, the dismissal of this action.
The Court VACATES the Order of Dismissal Entered on August
24, 2023.
The Court SETS a TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE in approximately
45 days.
Moving Party is ordered to give notice.