This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/05/2019 at 09:38:21 (UTC).

GREGORY GRAY, ET AL VS ALBERT LON CHANEY

Case Summary

On 10/16/2015 GREGORY GRAY filed a Contract - Professional Negligence lawsuit against ALBERT LON CHANEY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Torrance Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0900

  • Filing Date:

    10/16/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Professional Negligence

  • Courthouse:

    Torrance Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

GRAY GREGORY

GRAY KIMBERLY

Defendants

CHANEY ALBERT LON

DOES 1-10

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

FRUCHTER & SGRO APC

SGRO WILLIAM RANDALL

 

Court Documents

Summons

10/16/2015: Summons

Complaint

10/16/2015: Complaint

Case Management Statement

5/2/2016: Case Management Statement

Legacy Document

5/5/2016: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

7/14/2016: Legacy Document

Case Management Statement

7/29/2016: Case Management Statement

Legacy Document

10/3/2016: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

10/3/2016: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

10/3/2016: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

10/17/2016: Legacy Document

Declaration

11/1/2016: Declaration

Substitution of Attorney

12/23/2016: Substitution of Attorney

Legacy Document

9/22/2017: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

9/22/2017: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

2/9/2018: Legacy Document

Order

7/5/2018: Order

Exhibit List

9/4/2018: Exhibit List

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

9/5/2018: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

78 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/08/2019
  • at 08:34 AM in Department M; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • at 08:32 AM in Department M; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by Albert Lon Chaney (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/16/2019
  • at 08:34 AM in Department M; Non-Jury Trial - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • at 08:32 AM in Department M; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (To continue trial)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department M; Ex-Parte Proceedings

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2019
  • Minute Order ((Ex-Parte Proceedings)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (ex-parte motion to continue trial); Filed by Gregory Gray (Plaintiff); Kimberly Gray (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department M; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
120 More Docket Entries
  • 03/07/2016
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Albert Lon Chaney (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2016
  • at 08:30 AM in Department M; (OSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Matter Placed Off Calendar) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2016
  • Cross-Complaint; Filed by Albert Lon Chaney (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2016
  • Answer; Filed by Albert Lon Chaney (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2015
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Gregory Gray (Plaintiff); Kimberly Gray (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2015
  • OSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2015
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2015
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Gregory Gray (Plaintiff); Kimberly Gray (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2015
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by Gregory Gray (Plaintiff); Kimberly Gray (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: YC070900    Hearing Date: July 02, 2020    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Thursday, July 2, 2020

Department B Calendar No. 8

PROCEEDINGS

Gregory Gray, et al. v. Albert Lon Chaney III, et al.

YC070900

  1. Gregory Gray, et al.’s Motion to Set Aside Dismissal

  2. Albert Lon Chaney III’s Motion Requesting Clarification of the Order of Dismissal Entered on August 21, 2019 and Motion to Set Aside Dismissal of Cross-Complaint and to Schedule Matter for Trial

    TENTATIVE RULING

    Gregory Gray, et al.’s Motion to Set Aside Dismissal is granted.

    Complaint

    CCP § 473(b)(1) provides, in relevant part: “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 . . . . 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 motion was filed on February 21, 2020, within six months of the entry of dismissal which was entered on August 21, 2019. Plaintiff has established that the dismissal, entered on August 21, 2019, was taken due to the mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect of Plaintiff’s counsel.

    Plaintiff's counsel was engaged in another court at the time of the Final Status Conference (“FSC”) of August 14, 2019 and hired a contract attorney to appear at the FSC. However, the contract attorney did not appear and did not inform Plaintiff’s counsel of the non-appearance. In addition, Plaintiff’s counsel was not aware that the Court had set an OSC re: Dismissal on August 21, 2019 and no appearance was made on that date as well. (Decl., Kenneth Gaugh, ¶¶ 2-4.) These facts are sufficient to establish that the dismissal was entered due to the mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect of Plaintiff’s counsel.

    Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to explain the six-month delay in moving. However, the mandatory provision does not require a showing of diligence other than the six-month time limit. “Unlike the discretionary ground for relief, a motion based on attorney fault need not show diligence in seeking relief. The motion is timely if filed within six months of the entry of the default judgment or dismissal.” Younessi v. Woolf (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1137, 1147. Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside the Dismissal is granted.

    Cross-Complaint

    Cross-Complainant Albert Lon Chaney III’s Motion Requesting Clarification of the Order of Dismissal Entered on August 21, 2019 and Motion to Set Aside Dismissal of Cross-Complaint and to Schedule Matter for Trial is granted.

    Code Civil Procedure § 473(d) states: “The court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.”

    The Court’s minute order of August 21, 2019 requires clarification because the Court did not intend to dismiss moving party’s Cross-Complaint, but, instead only the Complaint of Plaintiff. Here, on August 21, 2019, at the date of trial, the Complaint of Plaintiff was dismissed without prejudice. However, apparently, the trial did not proceed as to the Cross-Complaint of Cross-Complainant. The order of dismissal was not intended to apply to the Cross-Complaint. Thus, the Court orders that the dismissal of the Cross-Complaint is hereby set aside.

    The Court hereby orders the instant action restored to the civil calendar.

    The final status conference date is ___________________.

    The trial date is _________________________.

    Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer SGRO WILLIAM RANDALL