Judge Yolanda Orozco, Case 21STCV16669 2022-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 21STCV16669, Date: 2022-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. 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 motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

Case Number: 21STCV16669 Hearing Date: September 1, 2022 Dept: 31

MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DISMISSAL IS DENIED

Background

On April 30, 2021, Plaintiff pro se Briand Williams as an individual and class representative filed a Complaint against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department; County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sherriff’s Department of Medical Services; Integrated Correctional Health Services; Correctional Health Services Department of Health Services Los Angeles County, Health Information Management, John Does and Jane Does Medical Practitioners, and Does 1 to 200. The Complaint alleges negligence and violations of the Ralph Act.

Since Plaintiff twice failed to appear at scheduled court hearings, first the Case Management Conference and then at the OSC re Dismissal, Plaintiff’s Complaint was dismissed on September 23, 2021, without prejudice. (Min. Order 09/23/21.)

On August 05, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Set Aside/Vacate the Dismissal.

Legal Standard

California Code of Civil Procedure section 473 subdivision (b) provides for both discretionary and mandatory relief. (See Pagnini v. Union Bank, N.A. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 298, 302.) Mandatory relief from default, default judgment, or dismissal is available based on an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. (Minick v. City of Petaluma (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 15, 25-26.) Discretionary relief is available based on the party’s own declaration or other evidence showing mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (Id.)

Under the discretionary relief provision, the application for 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473 subd. (b).)

Discussion

California Code of Civil Procedure section 473 subdivision (b) sets the jurisdictional time limit for filing a motion to set aside a dismissal as six months. The Court has no authority to consider late filed motions. Here, Plaintiff’s motion is untimely because it was filed eleven months filed after the six-month deadline. the Court has no discretion to extend a jurisdictional time limit set by the Legislature.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to set aside/vacate dismissal is DENIED.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal of the Complaint is DENIED.

Clerk to give notice.

The parties are strongly encouraged to attend all scheduled hearings virtually or by audio. Effective July 20, 2020, all matters will be scheduled virtually and/or with audio through the Court’s LACourtConnect technology. The parties are strongly encouraged to use LACourtConnect for all their matters. All masking protocols will be observed at the Courthouse and in the courtrooms.