On 01/31/2014 B T filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ELIA WEINBACH and HOLLY E. KENDIG. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Disposed - Dismissed
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
HOLLY E. KENDIG
DA SYLVEIRA RICHARD
DOES 1 TO 20
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
BRIAN E. CLAYPOOL
HUNT JAMES A. ASST. GENERAL COUNSEL
THE CLAYPOOL LAW FIRM
CLAYPOOL BRIAN EDWARD
2/2/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF THE CLAYPOOL LAW FIRM TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF; DECLARATION OF BRIAN E. CLAYPOOL IN SUPPORT? OF MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL
3/8/2018: PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF A PARTY; ETC
7/26/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE SETTING OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ...) OF 07/26/2019
8/30/2019: Proof of Service by Mail
8/30/2019: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil
1/24/2020: Appeal - Notice of Default Issued - APPEAL - NOTICE OF DEFAULT ISSUED NOA 12/27/19 B303319
5/19/2020: Appeal - Remittitur - Appeal Dismissed - APPEAL - REMITTITUR - APPEAL DISMISSED B303319
1/31/2014: COMPLAINT 1) NEGLIGENCE, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, NEGLIGENT HIRING AND/OR RETENTION, NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN, TRAIN, OR EDUCATE
4/29/2014: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL
5/27/2016: Minute Order -
5/27/2016: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER ACTION TO LIMITED JURISDICTION COURT
9/19/2016: EX PARTE APPLICATION TO? CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DATES TWO (2) MONTHS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME TO HEAR LAUSD?S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DATES;
9/19/2016: Minute Order -
12/29/2016: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT
1/31/2017: Minute Order -
6/6/2017: NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL
7/27/2017: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO REMOVE GUARDIAN AD LITEM AND FOR A COURT APPOINTED GUARDIAN; ETC.
7/27/2017: DECLARATION OF BRIAN E. CLAYPOOL IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO REMOVE GUARDIAN AD LITEM
DocketAppeal - Remittitur - Appeal Dismissed (B303319); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketAppellate Order Dismissing Appeal (NOA:12/27/19 B303319); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketAppeal - Notice of Non-Compliance (NOA 12/27/19 B303319); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketAppeal - Notice of Default Issued (NOA 12/27/19 B303319); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Filing of Notice of Appeal (Unlimited Civil) (NOA:12/27/19); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketAppeal - Notice of Appeal/Cross Appeal Filed; Filed by B.T. (Appellant)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 3, Holly E. Kendig, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketDeclaration (O.F BRIAN E. CLAYPOOL); Filed by Kimberly Tucker (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMotion for Reconsideration; Filed by Kimberly Tucker (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute order entered: 2015-07-17 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons Issued; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrd Apptng Guardian Ad Litem; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
DocketAPPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEMCIVILRead MoreRead Less
DocketApplication ; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT 1) NEGLIGENCE, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, NEGLIGENT HIRING AND/OR RETENTION, NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN, TRAIN, OR EDUCATERead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC534894 Hearing Date: October 29, 2019 Dept: 3
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST., ET AL.,
CASE NO: BC534894
[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
October 29, 2019
The Court called this matter for an OSC re: dismissal on 9/12/19. Because no party appeared, and because the case had been pending for more than five years, the Court dismissed the action.
At this time, Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the prior order. Plaintiff explains a variety of circumstances that led to the dismissal, and notes that her appearance attorney went to Stanley Mosk rather than Spring Street on 9/12/19, which contributed to the dismissal.
The motion is denied for two reasons. First, a motion for reconsideration cannot be made after a dismissal is entered. The court loses jurisdiction to rule on a pending motion for reconsideration after entry of judgment. APRI Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 176, 181. An order of dismissal is a judgment (see CCP §581d), and therefore a motion for reconsideration does not lie after a dismissal. Id. at 181. Once a judgment has been entered, the proper challenge is a motion for new trial (CCP §657 ), which may be based on various grounds including errors of law. Ramon v. Aerospace Corp. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1237-1238.
Second, Plaintiff failed to show any new facts or law that would actually give rise to a different outcome. While she provides new facts (the appearance attorney went to the wrong courthouse) to justify reconsideration (if it were jurisdictionally permitted), she does not provide any new facts to show dismissal is not mandatory under the five-year statute. Per CCP §583.310, dismissal is mandatory if a case has been pending for more than five years. This action was filed on 1/31/14. The court file does not reveal any reason the statute would have been tolled at any time between 1/31/14 and the present. Dismissal, therefore, was mandatory as of 1/31/19. The case was not actually dismissed until 9/12/19, almost eight months later.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at email@example.com indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases