Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 22STCV19757, Date: 2024-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV19757, Date: 2024-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19757 Hearing Date: December 13, 2024 Dept: 29

Becerra v. MV Transportation, Inc.
22STCV19757

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute

Tentative

The motion is denied without prejudice.

Background

On June 16, 2022, Maria Becerra (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against MV Transportation, Inc., LADOT Transit, City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, and Does 1 to 100 for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising from an alleged collision on July 2, 2021.

On April 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request to dismiss County of Los Angeles without prejudice.

Also on April 3, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel was relieved as attorney of record. Since that time, Plaintiff has been a self-represented litigant.

On April 15, 2024, MV Transportation, Inc. (“MV”) filed an answer.

On May 3, 2024, City of Los Angeles (“City”) and LADOT Transit (“LADOT”) filed an answer.

A trial setting conference was scheduled for May 31, 2024. Plaintiff did not appear, and the trial setting conference was continued to July 2, August 14, and October 17. Plaintiff did not appear at any of these conferences.

On October 21, 2024, Defendants MV, City, and LADOT (collectively “Defendants”) filed this motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff has not filed any opposition.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 583.410, subdivision (a) states: “The court may in its discretion dismiss an action for delay in prosecution pursuant to this article on its own motion or on motion of the defendant if to do so appears to the court appropriate under the circumstances of the case.”¿Subdivision (b) provides: “Dismissal shall be pursuant to the procedure and in accordance with the criteria prescribed by rules adopted by the Judicial Council.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 583.410, subd. (b).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 583.420 provides:¿

(a) The court may not dismiss an action pursuant to this article for delay in prosecution except after one of the following conditions has occurred:¿

(1) Service is not made within two years after the action is commenced against the defendant.¿

(2) The action is not brought to trial within the following times:¿

(A) Three years after the action is commenced against the defendant unless otherwise prescribed by rule under subparagraph (B).¿

(B) Two years after the action is commenced against the defendant if the Judicial Council by rule adopted pursuant to Section 583.410 so prescribes for the court because of the condition of the court calendar or for other reasons affecting the conduct of litigation or the administration of justice.¿

Moreover, California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1340(a) provides, the court on its own motion or on motion of the defendant may dismiss an action under Code of Civil Procedure sections 583.410-583.430 for delay in prosecution if the action has not been brought to trial or conditionally settled within two years after the action was commenced against the defendant.¿

In addition, in ruling on a motion to dismiss under section 583.410, the court must consider all matters relevant to a proper determination of the motion, including:¿

¿(1) ¿The court's file in the case and the declarations and supporting data submitted by the parties and, where applicable, the availability of the moving party and other essential parties for service of process;

(2) ¿The diligence in seeking to effect service of process;

(3) ¿The extent to which the parties engaged in any settlement negotiations or discussions;

(4) ¿The diligence of the parties in pursuing discovery or other pretrial proceedings, including any extraordinary relief sought by either party;

(5) ¿The nature and complexity of the case;

(6) ¿The law applicable to the case, including the pendency of other litigation under a common set of facts or determinative of the legal or factual issues in the case;

(7) ¿The nature of any extensions of time or other delay attributable to either party;

(8) ¿The condition of the court's calendar and the availability of an earlier trial date if the matter was ready for trial;

(9) ¿Whether the interests of justice are best served by dismissal or trial of the case; and

(10) ¿Any other fact or circumstance relevant to a fair determination of the issue.

The court must be guided by the policies set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 583.130.

(Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1342(e).)¿¿¿

“The competing considerations to be evaluated are the policies of discouraging stale claims and compelling reasonable diligence balanced against the strong public policy which seeks to dispose of litigation on the merits rather than on procedural grounds.”¿ (Van Keulen v. Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 122, 131.)¿¿

Discussion

The Court has concerns about Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this case. Indeed, it appears that Plaintiff may have abandoned the case. The Court must, however, deny this motion due a procedural issue regarding service.

In connection with the Court’s granting of the motion of Plaintiff’s former counsel to be relieved, the Court received inconsistent information about two potential addresses for Plaintiff. Both addresses are in Pico Rivera in the 90660 zip code, but there were two different street addresses: 8748 Aldrich Avenue and 8749 Aldrich Avenue.

Defendants served this motion on Plaintiff at the 8748 Aldrich Avenue address. But the Court cannot, on this record, be certain that this is a correct address for Plaintiff. And given the significance of this motion, the Court cannot grant the motion in light of the uncertainty regarding service.

The motion is denied without prejudice. If Defendants refile this motion (or any other motion), service is to be made on Plaintiff at both the 8748 Aldrich Avenue address and the 8749 Aldrich Avenue address.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion without prejudice.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice.