This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/22/2019 at 14:57:57 (UTC).

HATAM, ANTHONY VS MINASIAN, JOSIE

Case Summary

On 06/28/2017 HATAM, ANTHONY filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against MINASIAN, JOSIE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Other Disposed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8129

  • Filing Date:

    06/28/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Other Disposed

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

HATAM ANTHONY

Defendant

MINASIAN JOSIE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

HATAM, ANTHONY

TAMER STEVEN

Defendant Attorney

SOGOYAN JACK

 

Court Documents

Reply (name extension) - Reply to Motion to Set Aside Default

7/9/2019: Reply (name extension) - Reply to Motion to Set Aside Default

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Jud...)

7/16/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Jud...)

Complaint - Complaint Breach of Contract

6/28/2017: Complaint - Complaint Breach of Contract

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

6/28/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - Summons

6/28/2017: Summons - Summons

Proof of Personal Service

8/9/2017: Proof of Personal Service

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

8/9/2017: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

8/15/2017: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

9/21/2017: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Request for Dismissal

9/21/2017: Request for Dismissal

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial) of 12/28/2018

12/28/2018: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial) of 12/28/2018

Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

12/28/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

3/21/2019: Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default - Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default

3/21/2019: Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default - Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default

Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

4/8/2019: Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Set Aside Default and Default Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Lee D. Lubin

4/9/2019: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Set Aside Default and Default Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Lee D. Lubin

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Jud...)

4/11/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Jud...)

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Set Aside Default and Default Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Lee D. Lubin

4/22/2019: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Set Aside Default and Default Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Lee D. Lubin

6 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/24/2019
  • Hearingat 0900 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment (CCP 473.5)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2019
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment (CCP 473.5) scheduled for 09/24/2019 at 09:00 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2019
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Jud...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2019
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment (CCP 473.5) scheduled for 07/16/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion was rescheduled to 09/24/2019 09:00 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2019
  • DocketReply to Motion to Set Aside Default; Filed by: ANTHONY HATAM (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • DocketOpposition Set Aside Default and Default Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Lee D. Lubin; Filed by: JOSIE MINASIAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment (CCP 473.5) scheduled for 07/16/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Jud...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment (CCP 473.5) scheduled for 04/11/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 07/16/2019 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • DocketOpposition Set Aside Default and Default Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Lee D. Lubin; Filed by: JOSIE MINASIAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
17 More Docket Entries
  • 09/21/2017
  • DocketDefault entered as to JOSIE MINASIAN; On the Complaint filed by ANTHONY HATAM on 06/28/2017

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/15/2017
  • DocketNotice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2017
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: ANTHONY HATAM (Plaintiff); As to: JOSIE MINASIAN (Defendant); Service Date: 07/04/2017; Service Cost: 95.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2017
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by: ANTHONY HATAM (Plaintiff); As to: JOSIE MINASIAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2017
  • Docket; Default not entered as to JOSIE MINASIAN; On the Complaint filed by ANTHONY HATAM on 06/28/2017

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2017
  • DocketNON-JURY TRIAL SET FOR 12/28/18, 08:30 AM, DEPT 77

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2017
  • DocketOSC SET 06/29/20, 08:30 AM, DEPT. 77 PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: ANTHONY HATAM (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FILED - BREACH OF CONTRACT Filing Fee: 370.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS FILED

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 17K08129    Hearing Date: November 19, 2019    Dept: 94

MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL

(CCP § 473(b), discretionary)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Anthony Hatam’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal is GRANTED.

OPPOSITION: Filed on April 9 & 22, Sept. 18, 2019

REPLY: Filed Sept. 18, 2019

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

Plaintiff Anthony Hatam (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of a lease agreement against Defendant Josie Minasian (“Defendant”) on June 28, 2017. Because Plaintiff failed to appear for trial and to timely pursue default judgment, the Court dismissed this action without prejudice on December 28, 2018.

On March 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Vacate Dismissal (the “Motion”) under the discretionary provision of CCP § 473(b). Defendant twice filed her Opposition Papers on April 9 and 22, 2019. The Court STRIKES the Opposition from April 22 from the record as it is not permissible under CCP § 1005 and the Court did not authorize such filing.

At the previous hearing on July 16, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he brought the instant Motion within reasonable time. (7/16/19 Minute Order.) Plaintiff has filed a Reply to explain the reasonable time issue. Defendant then filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s reply on September 18, which is not permissible under CCP § 1005 and was not authorized by the Court. The September 18 Opposition is STRICKEN.

II. Analysis

“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.” (CCP § 473(b).) Relief under CCP § 473(b) is also available to plaintiffs because dismissal is the “practical equivalent of a default judgment.” (Aldrich v. San Fernando Valley Lumber Co., Inc.

A. Timeliness

Plaintiff brought the instant Motion less than four months after the dismissal. Thus, Plaintiff has satisfied the six-month time requirement under the statute. But the discretionary provision of Section 473(b) also requires Plaintiff to bring the Motion “within a reasonable time.” “[A] threshold requirement for relief is the moving party’s diligence. [Citation.]” (Huh v. Wang (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1420.) “[R]elief is not warranted unless the moving party demonstrates diligence in seeking it. [Citation.]” (Id.) In opposition, Defendant contends that Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that he brought the instant Motion within a reasonable time.

In reply, Plaintiff declares that he went to the emergency room on December 16, 2018 and was diagnosed with lung cancer. (Reply, Hatam Decl. ¶ 5.) From then until March 2019, Plaintiff “suffered fatigue, anxiety, forgetfulness[,] and depression.” (Id., Hatam Decl. ¶ 5.) On or about January 2, 2019, Plaintiff received court clerk’s notice that this action had been dismissed for failure to appear for trial, so he promptly hired his current attorney on January 4 to vacate the dismissal. (Id., Hatam Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that he was not able to file this Motion earlier because he had to attend to his mother’s medical needs in New York from January to March 2019. (Id., Tamer Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.)

“‘[W]hat is a reasonable time in any case depends upon the circumstances of that particular case’’ [citation], and ‘[w]hether a party has acted diligently is a factual question for the trial court’ [citation].” (Younessi v. Woolf (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1137, 1145.) Given the unique circumstances explained above, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff brought the instant Motion within a reasonable time.

B. Merits

“To entitle [a party] to relief the acts which brought about the default must have been the acts of a reasonably prudent person under the same circumstances.” (Jackson v. Bank of America (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 55, 58.) “‘Section 473 is often applied liberally where the party in default moves promptly to seek relief, and the party opposing the motion will not suffer prejudice if relief is granted. [Citations.] In such situations ‘very slight evidence will be required to justify a court in setting aside the default.’ [Citations.] [¶] Moreover, because the law strongly favors trial and disposition on the merits, any doubts in applying section 473 must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default.’ [Citation.] An order denying a motion for relief under section 473 is therefore ‘‘scrutinized more carefully than an order permitting trial on the merits.’’ [Citation.]” (Murray & Murray v. Raissi Real Estate Development, LLC (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 379, 385.)

Here, Plaintiff promptly brought the instant Motion within three months and there is no prejudice shown to Defendant. Thus, very slight evidence is required, and the Court must liberally apply Section 473(b). Given that Plaintiff had to go to an emergency room and was diagnosed with cancer, the Court finds his mistake in not correctly calendaring the trial date to be reasonable. Granting relief from dismissal to Plaintiff is, therefore, consistent with the strong policy of deciding cases on their merits.

“[T]he law ‘looks with [particular] disfavor on a party who, regardless of the merits of his cause, attempts to take advantage of the mistake, surprise, inadvertence, or neglect of his adversary.’ [Citation.]” (Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 249, 258.) This is exactly what Defendant is doing here by filing three different opposition papers, two of which are improper and without Court’s authorization.

III. Conclusion & Order

For the stated reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.

Trial is set for FEB. 20, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 94. All discovery cut-off

Moving party is 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.