This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/21/2019 at 13:32:34 (UTC).

LEE, SOO VS GRGUREVIC, PERLA

Case Summary

On 04/10/2017 LEE, SOO filed a Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle lawsuit against GRGUREVIC, PERLA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4609

  • Filing Date:

    04/10/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

LEE SOO

Defendant

GRGUREVIC PERLA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

KIM SHAPIRO PARK & LEE

Defendant Attorney

BUTLER AIDAN W

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

7/10/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

7/12/2019: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Summons

4/10/2017: Summons

Civil Case Cover Sheet

4/10/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint - Unisured Motorist

4/10/2017: Complaint - Unisured Motorist

(name extension) - PROOF OF SERVICE TO COMPLAINT FILED

5/11/2017: (name extension) - PROOF OF SERVICE TO COMPLAINT FILED

Response (name extension) - GENERAL DENIAL

6/1/2017: Response (name extension) - GENERAL DENIAL

Substitution of Attorney

6/9/2017: Substitution of Attorney

Minute Order - (Non-Jury Trial)

10/9/2018: Minute Order - (Non-Jury Trial)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

4/23/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/10/2020
  • Hearingat 0830 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2019
  • Hearingat 1000 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: SOO LEE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) scheduled for 09/16/2019 at 10:00 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2019
  • DocketMinute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 07/10/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 updated: Result Date to 07/10/2019; Result Type to Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 07/10/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • DocketMinute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • DocketPursuant to the request of plaintiff, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 04/23/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 07/10/2019 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/09/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 04/23/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
1 More Docket Entries
  • 10/09/2018
  • DocketPursuant to the request of plaintiff, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/09/2018 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion was rescheduled to 04/23/2019 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • DocketCase reassigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 77

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/09/2017
  • DocketSUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY FILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2017
  • DocketRESPONSE FILED - GENERAL DENIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE TO COMPLAINT FILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2017
  • DocketNON-JURY TRIAL SET FOR 10/09/18, 08:30 AM, DEPT 77

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2017
  • DocketOSC SET 04/10/20, 08:30 AM, DEPT. 77 PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FILED - UNINSURED MOTORIST Filing Fee: 370.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS FILED

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 17K04609    Hearing Date: November 05, 2019    Dept: 94

MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL

(CCP § 473(b), mandatory)

TENTATIVE RULING:

I. Background

On June 13, 2017, Plaintiff Soo Lee (“Plaintiff”) brought this premises liability action against Defendant Perla Grgyrevic (“Defendant”). Because Plaintiff failed to appear for his OSC Hearing re: Dismissal on September 16, 2019, the Court dismissed this action. Less than a month later, Plaintiff brought the instant Motion to Vacate Dismissal (the “Motion”) under the mandatory provision of CCP § 473(b) based on his counsel’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, and neglect.

II. Legal Standard

“Section 473(b) provides for both discretionary and mandatory relief. [Citation.]” (Pagnini v. Union Bank, N.A. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 298, 302.) Plaintiff seeks relief under the mandatory provision of the statute based on his counsel’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. The mandatory provision states in pertinent part:

“[W]henever 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.”

(CCP § 473(b).)

“The purpose of this mandatory relief provision is to alleviate the hardship on parties who lose their day in court due to an inexcusable failure to act by their attorneys. [Citation.]” (Rodriguez v. Brill (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 715, 723, emphasis added.) 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.

III. Discussion

Plaintiff timely brought this Motion under the mandatory provision of CCP § 473(b) less than one month after the dismissal.

Plaintiff submits a sworn affidavit from his counsel Paul Park (“Park”), who attests that he neglected to calendar the OSC Hearing and, as a result, failed to appear for it. (Motion, Park Decl. ¶¶ 1-3.) “[A]s this text [of the mandatory provision of Section 473(b)] indicates, what must be attested to is the mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect—not the reasons for it. [Citation.]” (Martin Potts & Associates, Inc. v. Corsair, LLC (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 432, 438.) In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the dismissal was a result of Plaintiff’s counsel’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, and neglect. Accordingly, the Court has no discretion but to grant the Motion under the mandatory provision of Section 473(b).

IV. Conclusion & Order

    
Plaintiff Soo Lee’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal is GRANTED