On 07/21/2016 LUBIA RAMIREZ filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against CITY OF LOS ANGELES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH
LOS ANGELES CITY OF
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT E. KEEN
CASADO KELLY LAWRENCE
FEUER MICHAEL N. CITY ATTORNEY
3/21/2018: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE;AND ETC.
3/21/2018: NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES TO PLAINTIFF COMPLAINT;AND ETC.
4/25/2018: NOTICE OF RULING
7/11/2018: ORDER RE: CONTINUANCE OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CCP 581(F)(2) FOR FAILURE OF PLAINTIFF TO AMEND COMPLAINT
7/26/2018: Minute Order
7/26/2018: ORDER RE:DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CCP 581 F2 FOR FAILURE OF PLAINTIFF TO AMEND COMPLAINT
9/7/2018: MOTION TO STRIKE GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 815.2 815.6 AND 820 FROM FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
9/7/2018: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; EXHIBITS
9/7/2018: NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT;
10/23/2018: Minute Order
11/27/2018: Memorandum of Points & Authorities
11/27/2018: Memorandum of Points & Authorities
11/28/2018: Minute Order
12/6/2018: Substitution of Attorney
12/18/2018: Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)
7/21/2016: COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District) (- FSC: 09-04-19 Trial: 09-18-19); Filed by Los Angeles, City of (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Trial - Not Held - Continued - StipulationRead MoreRead Less
Notice (Of intra-Office Transfer Of Attorney Of Record)Read MoreRead Less
at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District) (- FSC: 06-10-19 Trial: 06-18-19); Filed by Los Angeles, City of (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Cross-Complaint; Filed by Los Angeles, City of (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Summons (on Complaint)Read MoreRead Less
Answer (of the Defendant City of Los Angeles to Plaintiff's Complaint); Filed by Los Angeles, City of (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: ( Substitution of Attorney) - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - StipulationRead MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Lubia Ramirez (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 97; (Trial; Off Calendar) -Read MoreRead Less
Minute order entered: 2018-01-22 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 10:00 AM in Department 97; Final Status Conference (Final Status Conference; Off Calendar) -Read MoreRead Less
Minute OrderRead MoreRead Less
Minute order entered: 2018-01-04 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIESRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Lubia Ramirez (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC627816 Hearing Date: February 04, 2021 Dept: 32
PLEASE NOTE: 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. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.
February 4, 2021
Motion to Set Aside Dismissal
Plaintiff Lubia Ramirez
Defendant City of Los Angeles
Plaintiff Lubia Ramirez (“Plaintiff”) moves to set aside the Court’s order of March 5, 2020, in which the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to appear at trial. Defendant City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) opposes the motion.
Per Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), a court may “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.” In addition, a court must vacate a default or dismissal when a motion for relief under Section 473, subdivision (b) is filed timely and accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect “unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) The party must seek such relief “within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) Further, “[W]hen relief under section 473 is available, there is a strong public policy in favor of granting relief and allowing the requesting party his or her day in court.” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 981-982, internal quotations omitted.)
[S]ection 473, subdivision (b) “contains two distinct provisions for relief from default” — one makes relief discretionary with the court; the other makes it mandatory. The two provisions differ in several other respects: (1) the mandatory relief provision is narrower in scope insofar as it is only available for defaults, default judgments, and dismissals, while discretionary relief is available for a broader array of orders; (2) the mandatory relief provision is broader in scope insofar as it is available for inexcusable neglect, while discretionary relief is reserved for “excusable neglect”; and (3) mandatory relief comes with a price—namely, the duty to pay “reasonable compensatory legal fees and costs to opposing counsel or parties”.
(Martin Potts & Associates, Inc. v. Corsair, LLC (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 432, 438, citations omitted & emphasis added.) Further, the Court of Appeal in Martin Potts held that in the context of an application for “mandatory relief” “section 473, subdivision (b) does not require an explication of reasons as a prerequisite to mandatory relief. “Statutory analysis begins with the plain language of [a] statute, and if that language is unambiguous, the inquiry ends there” as well. As noted above, section 473, subdivision (b) makes relief mandatory only if the request for relief “is accompanied by an attorney's sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.” As this text indicates, what must be attested to is the mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect—not the reasons for it.” (Ibid.)
Plaintiff advances a declaration from her counsel, Kelly Lawrence Casado (“Counsel”). Counsel states that he failed to appear at trial because he was ill and overslept. Counsel’s declaration asserts that the Court’s dismissal of this action was the result of Counsel’s inadvertence or neglect.
In opposition, Defendant argues that Counsel’s neglect was not excusable. That is immaterial. Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) “requires the court to vacate a dismissal upon the attorney's sworn statement of neglect, regardless whether the neglect was excusable or whether other conditions for discretionary relief are satisfied.” (Vaccaro v. Kaiman (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 761, 770, emphasis original; see also Martin Potts, supra, 244 Cal.App.4th at p. 439 [“Indeed, in many cases, the reasons for the attorney's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect will be irrelevant; that is because, as noted above, the mandatory relief provision entitles a party to relief even when his or her attorney's error is inexcusable”].)
Defendant also argues that Plaintiff impermissibly delayed in seeking relief. Because Plaintiff filed the motion within six months of dismissal, it is timely. (Metropolitan Service Corp. v. Casa de Palms, Ltd. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1487.)
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
The Court finds that the relief is mandatory based upon the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel. Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the Court’s order of March 5, 2020 dismissing the action. The Court further orders the setting of trial and the final status conference. Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such.