On 03/28/2018 a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by CEN WANG against ZHAO ZHANG in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.
Pending - Other Pending
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
GEORGINA T. RIZK
CEDA MARIA ALICIA
3/28/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet
3/28/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 77 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of ServiceRead MoreRead Less
Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 77 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by: Cen Wang (Plaintiff); Meiying Wang (Plaintiff); Shi Jun Wang (Plaintiff); As to: Zhao Zhang (Defendant); Fuping Wang (Defendant); Rosa Ceda (Defendant) et al.Read MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Cen Wang (Plaintiff); Meiying Wang (Plaintiff); Shi Jun Wang (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Georgina T. Rizk in Department 77 Stanley Mosk CourthouseRead MoreRead Less
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/25/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77Read MoreRead Less
DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 04/01/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: 18STLC04865 Hearing Date: December 03, 2019 Dept: 94
MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL
Plaintiffs’ motion to set aside dismissal is GRANTED.
On March 28, 2018, Plaintiffs Cen Wang, Meiying Wang, and Shi Jun Wang, a minor, by Cen Wang, his guardian ad litem (collectively “Plaintiffs”), filed a complaint against Defendants Zhao Zhang, Fuping Wang, Rosa Ceda, and Maria Alicia Ceda (collectively “Defendants”) for personal injuries and damages arising out of two motor vehicle accidents.
On September 25, 2019, the Court dismissed the instant action after the parties failed to appear for the non-jury trial.
II. Legal Standard
C.C.P. §473(b) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
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. The court shall, whenever relief is granted based on an attorney’s affidavit of fault, direct the attorney to pay reasonable compensatory legal fees and costs to opposing counsel or parties. However, this section shall not lengthen the time within which an action shall be brought to trial pursuant to Section 583.310.
Under C.C.P. §473(b)’s attorney affidavit provision set forth above, “a party is relieved from the consequences of his or her attorney's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. Relief is available regardless of whether the attorney's neglect is excusable. [Citations] Moreover, if the requirements of this provision are met, then relief is mandatory. [Citations]” (Lorenz v. Commercial Acceptance Insurance Company (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 981, 989.)
Plaintiffs Cen Wang, Meiying Wang, and Shi Jun Wang, a minor, by Cen Wang, as his guardian ad litem (collectively “Plaintiffs”), move for an order setting aside the dismissal entered by the Court on September 25, 2019, pursuant to C.C.P. §473(b).
Plaintiffs are entitled to an order setting aside the dismissal. Plaintiffs filed the instant motion on November 4, 2019, days after the dismissal was entered. Plaintiffs’ motion is also accompanied by an attorney affidavit of fault. Plaintiffs’ counsel, Francis John Cowhig (“Cowhig”), declared that when this case was filed in March 2018, his long-time secretary, Maricela Barrios (“Barrios”), who had been with him for the past 16 years, was out on maternity leave. Cowhig declared Barrios is the person who usually receives all of the filed summons and complaints from the court and calendars any case management conferences, hearings, and/or trial dates set by the court. (Declaration of Cowhig ¶2.) Cowhig declared Barrios’ temporary replacement, although being instructed on what to do with pleadings returned from the court after filing, never calendared the trial date issued by the Court and just placed the pleadings into the office file. Cowhig declared the court date of September 25, 2019, for this matter, was, therefore, not entered into his office calendaring system. Cowhig declared that, as a result, he was unaware of this court date and did not appear, which caused the Court to dismiss the action without prejudice. (Declaration of Cowhig ¶3; Exhibit A.) Cowhig declared this was his fault for not double-checking and making sure the temporary secretary followed the office procedures and making sure he saw the pleadings returned form the court after they were filed. (Declaration of Cowhig ¶3.)
In light of the attorney affidavit of fault, relief from dismissal is mandatory. Consequently, Plaintiffs’ motion is granted.
IV. Conclusion & Order
Plaintiffs’ motion to set aside dismissal is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCdept94@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.