Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV20677, Date: 2022-08-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV20677 Hearing Date: August 2, 2022 Dept: 27
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
|
EVELYN CORONA, Plaintiff(s), vs.
CARLOS SALUB PADILLA, et al.,
Defendant(s). |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL
Dept. 27 1:30 p.m. August 2, 2022 |
On June 1, 2020, plaintiff Evelyn Corona (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Carlos Salub Padilla, Martha Patricia Padillaperez, and Rubio Portillo arising from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on June 23, 2020. On November 29, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiff’s complaint dismissed without prejudice after no appearances were made by or for any party at the non-jury trial or final status conference. On May 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed this motion to have the entry of dismissal set aside pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b).
“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) Application for this relief shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken. (Ibid.) “[T]he 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.” (Ibid.)
Plaintiff’s counsel, Bruce Loren Karey, declares that due to his heavy caseload, he sent another attorney to appear at the final status conference and trial date. (Karey Decl., ¶¶ C-D.) However, the attorney did not appear. (Ibid.)
This Motion to set aside dismissal was timely filed within six months of dismissal and the Court finds dismissal was due to counsel’s excusable neglect. The Motion to set aside the November 29, 2021 dismissal is GRANTED and the action is reinstated. Trial is set for July 20, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 27 and the final status conference is set for June 29, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 27. The Court additionally sets an OSC re: Failure to File Proof of Service of Summons for November 17, 2022 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 27.
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 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.