Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 19STCV38881, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV38881    Hearing Date: August 25, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

Defendants LAURA SIDERMAN and NATHANIEL DESMOND DAVIS move the Court for an order vacating its June 3, 2022, minute order. No plaintiff has filed an opposition.

On June 2, 2022, plaintiffs BRENDA YOHANA BORRAYO and LAURA RAYMUNDO filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case. Defendants claim this failing was erroneous. (Declaration of Lisa A. Freed (Freed Decl.) ¶¶ 4 and 6.) Defendants reached a settlement with only two of three named plaintiffs. (Ibid.) A third plaintiff, JOSE JULES, has not settled with the defendants; in fact, he has yet to respond to discovery. (Id. ¶ 5.)

The Court vacated all pending hearing dates on June 3, 2022, pursuant to the erroneous Notice of Settlement. Because settlement has been reached with only two of three plaintiffs, defendants seek to have the instant case returned to the “Civil Active” list and all formerly pending hearings placed back on the Court’s calendar.

Plaintiffs filed the instant action, based on a car accident, in October 2019. All three plaintiffs were originally represented by the same counsel, Raymond Ghermezian. On February 21, 2020, the Court granted counsel Raymond Ghermezian’s motion to be relieved as counsel for all plaintiffs. On October 7, 2020, plaintiffs Raymundo and Borrayo filed Substitutions of Attorney appointing Loren Merlin, Esq. (subsequently associated with current counsel “ALDERLAW”) as their counsel. Plaintiff Jules did not join that filing, and remains unrepresented by counsel.

In April 2022, defendants reached a settlement with plaintiffs Borrayo and Raymundo. (Freed Decl. ¶4.) Defendant Jules was not included in that agreement; in fact, on May 11, 2022, defendants moved the Court to compel Jose Jules to respond to three sets of discovery requests. The motions were calendared for hearing on June 8, 2022.

Defendants’ counsel sought signatures on a request for dismissal on May 17, 2022, from counsel for Plaintiffs Borrayo and Raymundo, but did not receive a reply. (Ibid.) Nonetheless, on June 2, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case. As a result, the Court advanced and vacated all pending hearings in the case on June 3. (6/3/22 Minute Order.)

Defendants’ counsel discovered the erroneous filing on June 6, 2022. (Freed Decl. ¶6.) She attempted to resolve the issue informally and reach a settlement with the unrepresented Plaintiff Jules on June 7 and June 17, 2022. (Id. ¶7.) Those attempts were unsuccessful, so defendants now move the Court to vacate its June 3, 2022, order.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8) empowers the Court to “amend and control its processes and orders to conform to law and justice.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 128, subd. (a)(8).) “[A] court has the inherent power to correct clerical errors in its records so as to make these records reflect the true facts.” (In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705, citations omitted.) The Court’s power to correct the record applies to errors “made by the clerk, counsel, or the court itself[.]” (Ames v. Paley (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 668, 672, citation omitted.) Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d) permits the Court to set aside void orders. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 473, subd. (d); Trackman v. Kenney (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 175, 180; Reid v. Balter (1993) 14 Cal.App.4^th 1186, 1194.)

III.      DISCUSSION

          Counsel for the defendants testifies that counsel for Plaintiffs Borrayo and Raymundo filed the Notice of Settlement of Entire Case in error. Counsel for Borrayo and Raymundo has filed no statement denying this testimony, nor has self-represented plaintiff Jules, to whom this motion is directed. Defendants moved promptly to vacate the Court’s June 3, 2022 order after learning of its erroneous filing. (Freed Decl. ¶6.) Per counsel’s declaration, they attempted to resolve this issue directly with Mr. Jules on June 7 and June 17, 2022 before raising it to the Court. (Id. ¶7.)

Defendants cite to Levitz v. the Warlocks (Levitz) (2007) 148 Cal.App.4^th 531 for the proposition that a “case should be reinstated where there is no settlement[.]” (Mot. 6:19-20, citing Levitz v. the Warlocks (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 531, 534-535.) Levitz was decided on different, more extreme facts than we face here; in Levitz, the trial court overreached and involuntarily dismissed a case, over parties’ protests, because it was impatient with their settlement efforts. While Levitz was a more extreme case, defendants have properly expressed its underlying spirit: that parties’ intent to settle, or not, should be respected by the Court and correctly reflected in its orders.

Defendants also correctly describe the limited procedural effect of a Notice of Settlement. (See Irvine v. Regents of University of California (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 994.) A Notice of Settlement does not lodge an enforceable agreement with the court; by itself, it does not even effect dismissal. (Id. at 1001.) Rather, the Notice is a “case management tool.” (Ibid.) The Court has employed it as such here, and has merely vacated future hearings with the expectation the action will be dismissed. Vacating the June 3, 2022 order and reinstating the canceled hearings merely corrects the Court’s calendar.

IV.      CONCLUSION

          Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside the order stated in the Court’s June 3 minute order is GRANTED. The Court will re-calendar the hearings vacated in that order in consultation with the parties at the hearing of the motion on August 25, 2022.

            Moving party to give notice. 

            Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that 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 matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.