Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV07271, Date: 2024-10-02 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT  (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE.  4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020) 
IMPORTANT:  In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely.  The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited.  The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants. 
ALSO NOTE:  If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar.  THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 22STCV07271    Hearing Date: October 2, 2024    Dept: 29

Ramirez v. Tejeda
21STCV07271
Motion to set aside notice of settlement of entire case

Tentative

The motion is granted in part and denied in part

Background

On February 24, 2021, Plaintiffs Adalberto Ramirez (“Ramirez”), Fernando Santana Velazco (“Velazco”) and Mark Anthony Velasquez (“Velasquez”) filed a complaint against Juan Carlos Tejeda (“Tejeda”), Braxton R, LLC (”Braxton”), and Does 1 through 50 for negligence arising out of an automobile accident occurring on February 4, 2020.

On June 29, 2022, Tejeda filed an answer.

On March 20, 2023, Braxton filed an answer.

In April and June 2023, Plaintiffs Ramirez and Velazco (only) substituted in new counsel at the Dufour Law.  Plaintiff Velasquez continued to be represented by counsel at the Heidari Law Group. 

On December 18, 2023, Plaintiffs Ramirez and Velazco amended the complaint to name Tejeda Transportation, LLC (“Tejeda Transportation”) as Doe 1.

On January 4, 2024, Plaintiffs Ramirez and Velazco filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) adding causes of action for negligent entrustment; negligent hiring, training, retention, and supervision; and negligence per se.

On February 9, 2024, Tejeda and Braxton filed an answer to the FAC.

On April 8, 2024, Tejeda filed a notice of stay of proceedings as to him as a result of his bankruptcy filing.

On June 21, 2024, the Heidari Law Group filed a notice of settlement of entire case “only as to [Plaintiff] Ramirez.”  (This appears to have been an error, as the Heidari Law Group has not represented Plaintiff Ramirez since June 2023.)  Because a notice of settlement of the entire case was filed, the Court on the same day advanced and vacated the trial date.

Five days later, on June 26, 2024, the Heidari Law Group filed an amended notice of settlement of entire case “only as to [Plaintiff] Velasquez.” 

On August 22, 2024, Plaintiffs Ramirez and Velazco applied ex parte for an order shortening time on a motion to set aside the notice of settlement, to restore the case to active status, and for sanctions.  The ex parte application was denied, without prejudice to hearing the motion on regular notice.

On August 28, 2024, Plaintiffs Ramirez and Velazco filed this motion.  Plaintiffs seek (1) to set aside the notices of settlement of entire case filed by the Heidari Law Group; (2) to reinstate the case; and (3) an order imposing monetary sanctions against Plaintiff Velasquez and the Heidari Law Group. 

Neither Plaintiff Velasquez nor anyone else filed an opposition to this motion.

Plaintiff Velasquez did, however, file his own motion to set aside the notice of settlement.  That motion was filed on September 18 and is set to be heard on October 14.  

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).) Where such an application for discretionary relief is made, the motion must be accompanied by a copy of the answer or pleading proposed to be filed; “otherwise the application shall not be granted.”  (Ibid.)  The application for relief must be made within a reasonable time, and in no case exceeding six months after the judgment. (Ibid.)

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.)

Discussion

Plaintiffs Ramirez and Velazco have not settled their claims against the defendants.  (Dufour Decl., ¶15.)  Only Plaintiff Velasquez has settled.  (Ibid.)

Thus, it is clear that the notice of settlement of the entire case was filed in error.  The request to set aside the notice of settlement is granted.

The Court sets a trial date in approximately 120 days.  Proceedings remained stayed, however, as to Defendant Tejeda.

Plaintiffs Ramirez and Velazco also seek sanctions against Plaintiff Velasquez and the Heidari Law Group, under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5. The Court finds that the actions of the Heidari Law Group were mistaken but not made in bad faith, frivolous, or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5, subd. (a).)  Accordingly, the request for sanctions is denied.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion to set aside the notices of settlement of entire case filed on June 21 and June 26, 2024.

The Court SETS a trial date on February __, 2025, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse. 

The Court SETS a Final Status Conference on January __, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

All discovery deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

The case remains stayed as to Defendant Tejeda.

The Court DENIES the request for sanctions.

Moving Party is to give notice.