Judge: Wesley L. Hsu, Case: 23PSCV00130, Date: 2023-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV00130    Hearing Date: May 15, 2023    Dept: L

Plaintiff R.C. Henderson Trust, LLC’s Motion to Set Aside Dismissal of the Case is GRANTED.

Background   

Plaintiff R.C. Henderson Trust, LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

On May 21, 2015, Plaintiff, through its predecessor in interest, and Adam Selayandia (“Selayandia”) entered into a purchase agreement (“Agreement #1”), whereby Plaintiff purchased from Selayandia his right to receive certain periodic annuity payments, including 10 annual payments of $2,475.72 beginning on April 30, 2016 and ending on April 30, 2025 (the “Agt. #1 Payments”). Per the Agreement, Selayandia was to deliver to Plaintiff a letter of instruction, addressed to the annuity company, New York Life Insurance Company (“NY Life”), directing that the Agt. #1 Payments be sent to Plaintiff at an address designated by Plaintiff. On November 23, 2015, Plaintiff, through its predecessor in interest, and Selayandia entered into a separate Purchase Agreement (“Agreement #2”) whereby Plaintiff purchased from Selayandia his right to receive 17 annual payments of $2,475.72 beginning on April 30, 2026 and ending on April 30, 2042. Selayandia agreed in writing that the Agt. #2 Payments should be sent by NY Life to Plaintiff. Plaintiff received payments due in April 2016 through April 2021, but did not receive the payment due in April 2022. Plaintiff believes Selayandia has redirected the monies.

On January 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Selayandia, NY Life and Does 1-10 for:

1.                  Breach of Contract

2.                  Declaratory Relief

3.                  Conversion

On February 21, 2023, a “Stipulation of Discontinuance with Prejudice” was filed. On March 29, 2023, Plaintiff dismissed the entire action without prejudice.

Legal Standard

“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. Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken . . .

Notwithstanding any other requirements of this section, the court shall, 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, vacate any (1) resulting default entered by the clerk against his or her client, and which will result in entry of a default judgment, or (2) resulting default judgment or dismissal entered against his or her client, unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)

Discussion

Plaintiff moves the court for an order, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 473, subdivision (b), setting aside the dismissal of this case and reinstating it to the trial calendar.

Plaintiff’s counsel James R. Felton (“Felton”) represents as follows:

Shortly after filing the complaint, he communicated with NY Life’s counsel. (Felton Decl., ¶ 5). NY Life requested that it be dismissed via a stipulation because, as Annuity Obligor, it was essentially a third-party escrow. (Id.) He agreed to dismiss the matter entirely, on the mistaken belief that NY Life would send all future payments to Plaintiff. (Id.) On March 28, 2023, a dismissal was filed with the court. (Id., ¶ 6). After the dismissal was filed, NY Life’s counsel contacted him and indicated that NY Life did not believe that the matter had been resolved and instead were waiting for the court to enter judgment, giving it direction. (Id.)

The court determines that Felton’s declaration reflects that the dismissal was entered due to Felton’s excusable neglect. The unopposed motion is granted, and the case is ordered restored to the civil active list.