On 07/24/2013 KERAMAT AGHABALA filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against OLGA MOISEYEVA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are BENNY C. OSORIO and TERESA A. BEAUDET. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
BENNY C. OSORIO
TERESA A. BEAUDET
LAW OFFICES OF P. PAUL AGHABALA & ASSOC.
MCELFISH RAYMOND D. ESQ.
7/24/2013: COMPLAINT FOR: 1. STRICT LIABILITY; ETC
3/20/2015: Minute Order
5/15/2015: PLAINTIFF KERAMAT AGHABALA'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT OLGA MOISEYEVA'S MOTION TO VACATE AND SET ASIDE DEFAULT
5/22/2015: REPLY TO PLAINTIFF KERAMAT AGHABALA'S OPPOSITION TO OLGA MOISEVEVA'S MOTION TO VACATE AND SET ASIDE DEFAULT
10/20/2015: NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY
6/6/2016: NOTICE OF RULING
6/28/2016: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; SUPPORTING DECLARA
6/30/2016: DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING THE TRIAL DATE; ETC.
7/13/2016: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
7/13/2016: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
12/8/2016: Minute Order
12/8/2016: DECLARATION OF ANTHONY D. ROSS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE HEARING FOR DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, TRIAL, FSC AND ALL RELEVENT DEADLINES
12/8/2016: Notice of Ruling
12/8/2016: PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE HEARING FOR DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF P. PAUL AGHABALA
1/11/2017: Minute Order
2/6/2017: Minute Order
Notice (OF UNAVAILABILITY ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
Order (RE MOTION TO VACATE AND SET ASIDE DEFAULT ) Filed by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Answer (BY OLGA MOISEYEVA ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant/RespondentRead MoreRead Less
Reply to Opposition Filed by Attorney for Defendant/RespondentRead MoreRead Less
Opposition Document Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Motion Filed by Attorney for Defendant/RespondentRead MoreRead Less
Opposition Document (RE DEFT EPA RE SET ASIDE DEFAULT ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
Order (RE DEFT EPA RE SET ASIDE DEFAULT ) Filed by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Ex-Parte Application (RE SET ASIDE DEFAULT ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant/RespondentRead MoreRead Less
Default Entered (AS OLGA MOISEYEVA ) Filed by Attorney for Pltf/PetnrRead MoreRead Less
Statement of Damages Filed by Attorney for Pltf/PetnrRead MoreRead Less
Request to Enter Default (reject for moiseyeva- #28 medical expenses ) Filed by Attorney for Pltf/PetnrRead MoreRead Less
Declaration (OF DILIGENCE FOR SUBMSTITUTE SERVICE BY MAURICIO GONZALEZ ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
Partial Dismissal (w/o Prejudice) (as to defendants Albert Finkelstein and Inessa Finkelstein only ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Reassignment and Order Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Request to Enter Default (REJECT FOR MOISEYEVA- #26.28.30. NEED DUE DILLIGENCE. FILE A NEW PROOF OF SERVICE. ) Filed by Attorney for Pltf/PetnrRead MoreRead Less
Request to Enter Default (as to Olga Moiseyeva reject-#3,25,26,28,30 ) Filed by Attorney for Pltf/PetnrRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Service (Summons & Complaint, etc. ) Filed by Attorney for Pltf/PetnrRead MoreRead Less
Summons Filed Filed by Attorney for Pltf/PetnrRead MoreRead Less
ComplaintRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC516166 Hearing Date: December 02, 2019 Dept: 5
olf MOiseyeva, et al.,
Case No.: BC516166
Hearing Date: December 2, 2019
[TENTATIVE] order RE:
Motion To dismiss
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF SERVICE
Plaintiff Keramat Aghabala (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Harrison Shaw (“Defendant”) based on injuries Plaintiff sustained from a dog bite on January 23, 2013. The complaint was filed on July 24, 2013, and Defendant was added as a defendant on July 13, 2016. Plaintiff served Defendant on September 29, 2019. Now, Defendant moves to dismiss this case for failure to serve the summons and complaint within three years. The Court had also issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) Re: Dismissal for the same reason. Plaintiff opposes the motion. The Court grants the motion and dismisses this case with prejudice. The Court discharges the OSC as moot.
The summons and complaint “shall” be served within three years “after the action is commenced against the defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 583.210.) It is “mandatory” that the Court dismiss any case that does not comply with this requirement. (Code Civ. Proc. § 583.250.)
The complaint was filed on July 24, 2013. Because Plaintiff named Defendant via Doe amendment, the three-year period began on the date Plaintiff originally filed the complaint, which is July 24, 2013. (Inversiones Papaluchi S.A.S. v. Superior Court (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1061.) Therefore, the deadline was July 24, 2016.
Even if the three-year deadline ran from the date Defendant was added via Doe Amendment, Plaintiff still violated Rule 583.210. Defendant was added as a defendant on July 13, 2016. Defendant contested the validity of service by filing his motion to set aside the default on May 29, 2019, which the Court decided on July 22, 2019. The 54-day period of May 29, 2019 to July 22, 2019 is tolled. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.240, subd. (c).) Therefore, Plaintiff’s deadline to serve Defendant would have been August 28, 2019. Plaintiff did not serve Defendant until September 29, 2019. Therefore, Plaintiff has violated the three-year service rule.
Plaintiff argues that Defendant never served the motion on him. Plaintiff attaches a proof of service to the motion. Regardless, Defendant opposes the motion on the merits, waiving any claim that the motion was procedurally defective. (See In re Marriage of Falcone (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 826.)
Plaintiff argues that the Court should toll the period of July 5, 2018, to May 29, 2019, because Plaintiff and his counsel believed that Plaintiff had validly served Defendant. Plaintiff cites no authority in support of this argument. Regardless, tolling this time period would not benefit Plaintiff because he did not even attempt to serve Defendant until after the three-year period ran on July 24, 2016.
Plaintiff also argues that equitable estoppel bars Defendant from seeking dismissal. There is nothing in the record suggesting that Defendant was not amenable to service or that service was impossible, impracticable, or futile due to causes beyond Plaintiff’s control. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 583.240(a) & (c).) Indeed, Plaintiff’s counsel merely needed to locate Defendant’s home address and serve him. Plaintiff’s argument that he mistook Defendant’s brother’s address for Defendant’s address is not persuasive.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Defendant Harrison Shaw’s motion to dismiss is granted per Code of Civil Procedure, section 583.210. Plaintiff’s case against Defendant Harrison Shaw is dismissed as of this date. The Court discharges the OSC as moot. The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.
DATED: December 2, 2019 ___________________________
Stephen I. Goorvitch
Judge of the Superior Court