Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: BC697499, Date: 2025-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC697499    Hearing Date: February 27, 2025    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On November 26, 2024, following a series of status conferences about a bankruptcy stay, the Court entered an Order of Dismissal due to Plaintiff Randy Rose’s failure to prosecute.

On January 23, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside/vacate the dismissal.

A court may relieve a party or counsel from a judgment resulting from mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)  The application for relief must be made within a reasonable time, not to exceed six months, after the judgment.  (Ibid.)  When the default was caused by counsel’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, the Court must grant relief.  (Ibid.)

Plaintiff timely filed this motion less than two months after the dismissal.  Richard J. Cowles, Plaintiff’s counsel, declares that the November 26, 2024 hearing date was miscalendared due to a difference in settings when his firm changed practice management software.  (Cowles Decl. ¶ 2.)  Counsel also details a series of personal matters from July 2024 through October 2024, including his son’s baseball tournament, his own surgery, and the loss of both of his parents.  (Cowles Decl. ¶¶ 3-10.)

Attorney Cowles appeared at the July 26, 2024 Status Conference where the Court scheduled the November 26, 2024 Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute.  This was after counsel’s June 2024 software transition.  It is not excusable or credible that counsel “was unaware of the hearing and would have appeared and requested that the court continue the matter due to the continued bankruptcy stay” when he was present at the hearing where the OSC was set.  (Cowles Decl. ¶ 2.)

Nevertheless, “the purpose of the mandatory relief provision under section 473, subdivision (b) is achieved by focusing on who is to blame, not why.  Indeed, in many cases, the reasons for the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect will be irrelevant; that is because . . . the mandatory relief provision entitles a party to relief even when his or her attorney’s error is inexcusable.”  (Martin Potts & Associates, Inc. v. Corsair, LLC (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 432, 439.)

Based on these facts—and in the absence of any opposition—the Court finds that the dismissal is the result of counsel’s mistake, inadvertence, or neglect, and Plaintiff is entitled to relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473.

The unopposed motion to set aside the dismissal is GRANTED.

At the hearing, the parties should be prepared to discuss the next steps in this action.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 27th day of February 2025