Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Case Number: 21STCV17645, Date: 2024-02-16 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. 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 do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.

If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.

2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DISMISSAL, SET ASIDE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, AND REQUEST TO REINSTATE THE DISMISSED UD TO THE TRIAL CALENDAR

1. An Order setting aside the dismissal of Case No. 21STCV17645 and Case No. 21AVUD00003;

2. An Order setting aside the oral settlement agreement from October 17, 2023; and

1. Motion to Set Aside Dismissal, Set Aside Settlement Agreement, and Reinstate Case on Active Calendar is DENIED.

On May 11, 2021, Plaintiff Lake Hughes Recovery, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendant William Basner (Defendant) with four causes of action for: (1) Intentional Interference with Contract; (2) Negligent Interference with Contract; (3) Breach of Contract; and (4) Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment.

According to the Complaint, Plaintiff operated an in-patient recovery center located at 38745 3 Points Road, Lake Hughes, California 93532 which Defendant owned. Plaintiff leased this property from Defendant. Plaintiff alleges Defendant began to harass and interrupt Plaintiff’s operations which jeopardized their patients’ privacy.

On September 19, 2022, the parties filed a Stipulation to Consolidate Case No. 21STCV17645 with Case No. 21SVUD00003.

On March 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Related Case with Case No. 21AVUD00003, pending in Dept. A22 of Lancaster Superior Court, filed on January 5, 2021. The court granted the notice of related case on March 23, 2023.

On October 17, 2023, the court held a Final Status Conference and proceeded to Trial. At 2:51 p.m., the parties represented to the court that they had settled. The court dismissed the case and retained jurisdiction under CCP 664.6 to enforce the agreement.

On February 1, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation to continue the hearing on the instant motion.

“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…¿ [The application]¿shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.”¿ (CCP¿§¿473(b).) Courts must grant relief when the attorney’s inexcusable neglect results in the dismissal. (Ibid.) Otherwise, relief under this section is discretionary. (Ibid.) This section also applies to orders of dismissal resulting from voluntary settlement agreements. (Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 249, 255 (Zamora) [internal citations omitted].)

“The court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order. (CCP¿§¿473(d).)

Defendant contends that he is entitled to mandatory and discretionary relief because he missed the trial because his own attorney failed to notify him of trial, that he had not seen the terms of the settlement in writing, had not digested the terms of the agreement, was not feeling good, was under the impression he was settling the partition case (not the UD case), and was surprised that the UD case was dismissed with prejudice. Defendant also contends that the settlement agreement is invalid for lack of jurisdiction because the UD action was not related to the instant action and the Calabasas property was never subject to litigation in the instant case or the UD case.

Plaintiff argues that Defendant is not entitled to discretionary relief because there was never any confusion or doubt that both the UD Action and the Civil Action were proceeding to trial in Department 51 as a consolidated matter. Plaintiff also argues that Defendant was present at the trial and at the settlement negotiations, as indicated in various minute orders, and that the court entered the settlement terms on the record. As to the Calabasas Property, Plaintiff argues that the current agreement indicated it was adjusting a prior settlement in the partition action that the parties reached on May 11, 2023. Additionally, Plaintiff argues that Defendant is not entitled to mandatory relief because there is no affidavit of fault by counsel. Plaintiff requests sanctions pursuant to CCP 128.5.

Defendant replies that he was heavily medicated on the day of trial and the opposition failed to address his mental capacity to enter into the settlement agreement that day. Defendant also replies that there is no consolidation order and if there were, the court abused its discretion in consolidating the actions.

As a threshold matter, Defendant is not entitled to mandatory relief. First, the challenged dismissal was not “procedurally equivalent to a default” because it was dismissal after a voluntary settlement agreement. (Jackson v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 166, 175-176.) Additionally, dismissal was entered during the pendency of the trial with both parties present. This is hardly failure to proceed on the merits.

Discretionary relief is also not warranted here because Defendant has not met his burden showing a satisfactory excuse. (Hopkins & Carley v. Gens (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1410.) First, Defendant claims he was never notified of trial, had taken two Hydrocodone, was in pain and stressed out, was told by his attorneys to settle, and does not remember much of what took place at court. (Basner Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17.) Defendant additionally states he told his attorneys he needed time to digest the outcome of the case.[1] (Id. at ¶ 16.) However, Defendant’s reflection on a settlement agreement after the fact is not grounds to set aside a dismissal. (See Hopkins & Carley, supra, at 1415.] Moreover, the Court orallys reviewed the terms of the agreement with Defendant at length before accepting the settlement. The Court personally queried Defendant to ensure that the settlement was knowingly, intelligently and understandably entered into.[2] At no time did the court perceive any outward manifestation of Defendant’s alleged confusion at that time.[3] Ultimately, only after the was convinced that Defendant voluntarily entered into the settlement agreement, did the Court accept the agreement. The supporting declaration of Ms. Sanchez does not help Defendant either because it predominantly discussed damage to the property which is not evidence of excusable mistake or neglect.

1. Motion to Set Aside Dismissal, Set Aside Settlement Agreement, and Reinstate Case on Active Calendar is DENIED. Request for sanctions is denied.

[1] Defendant’s Exhibit 8 indicates that Defendant wrote to his attorneys on October 25, 2023 – little over one week from the settlement.

[2]This is the standard for accepting a plea in a criminal court. The Court has many years of experience in following this standard.

[3] The court is not persuaded by Defendant’s other arguments as to the validity of the related cases because the parties had stipulated to consolidate the cases, counsel had the opportunity at trial to indicate there was a mistake, and Defendant had the opportunity at trial to indicate there was a mistake. As such, the court declines to further develop this argument.