This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/09/2019 at 03:49:56 (UTC).

LUBIA RAMIREZ VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Case Summary

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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7816

  • Filing Date:

    07/21/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

RAMIREZ LUBIA

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1-10

LOS ANGELES CITY OF

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT E. KEEN

CASADO KELLY LAWRENCE

Defendant Attorney

FEUER MICHAEL N. CITY ATTORNEY

 

Court Documents

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE;AND ETC.

3/21/2018: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE;AND ETC.

NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES TO PLAINTIFF COMPLAINT;AND ETC.

3/21/2018: NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES TO PLAINTIFF COMPLAINT;AND ETC.

NOTICE OF RULING

4/25/2018: NOTICE OF RULING

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

7/11/2018: 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

Minute Order

7/26/2018: Minute Order

ORDER RE:DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CCP 581 F2 FOR FAILURE OF PLAINTIFF TO AMEND COMPLAINT

7/26/2018: ORDER RE:DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CCP 581 F2 FOR FAILURE OF PLAINTIFF TO AMEND COMPLAINT

MOTION TO STRIKE GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 815.2 815.6 AND 820 FROM FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

9/7/2018: MOTION TO STRIKE GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 815.2 815.6 AND 820 FROM FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; EXHIBITS

9/7/2018: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; EXHIBITS

NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT;

9/7/2018: NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT;

Minute Order

10/23/2018: Minute Order

Notice

10/25/2018: Notice

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

11/27/2018: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

11/27/2018: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Minute Order

11/28/2018: Minute Order

Substitution of Attorney

12/6/2018: Substitution of Attorney

Cross-Complaint

12/13/2018: Cross-Complaint

Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

12/18/2018: Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES

7/21/2016: COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES

27 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/14/2019
  • [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
  • 12/20/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2018
  • Notice (Of intra-Office Transfer Of Attorney Of Record)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2018
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2018
  • [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
  • 12/13/2018
  • Cross-Complaint; Filed by Los Angeles, City of (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2018
  • Summons (on Complaint)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2018
  • Answer (of the Defendant City of Los Angeles to Plaintiff's Complaint); Filed by Los Angeles, City of (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2018
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: ( Substitution of Attorney) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2018
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
51 More Docket Entries
  • 02/21/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Lubia Ramirez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 97; (Trial; Off Calendar) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-01-22 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2018
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 97; Final Status Conference (Final Status Conference; Off Calendar) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-01-04 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Lubia Ramirez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

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 sscdept32@lacourt.org 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.

TENTATIVE RULING

DEPARTMENT

32

HEARING DATE

February 4, 2021

CASE NUMBER

BC627816

MOTION

Motion to Set Aside Dismissal

MOVING PARTY

Plaintiff Lubia Ramirez

OPPOSING PARTY

Defendant City of Los Angeles

MOTION

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.

ANALYSIS

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.