This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/08/2019 at 19:56:26 (UTC).

MOJGAN JADIDI VS ACTION PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC

Case Summary

On 12/03/2015 MOJGAN JADIDI filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against ACTION PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC. 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:

    ****3102

  • Filing Date:

    12/03/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

JADIDI MOJGAN

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

ACTION PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC.

DOES 1 TO 50

FITNESS VANTURES INTERNATIONAL LLC

AZZURA HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION DOE 4

OUT-FIT A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION DOE 1

MAD DOGG ATHLETICS INC.

PILATES PEAK

Defendant and Respondent

DOES 1 TO 50

Cross Defendants

OUT-FIT A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

AZZURA HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

TOFER & ASSOCIATES

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

ELDER BRAD M. ESQ.

WEND CHRISTOPHER P ESQ.

ELDER BRAD MACLEAN ESQ.

MCCONNELL ROBIN MICHELLE ESQ.

BOUCHE' JACQUELINE

ELDER BRAD M.

SCHAFFER CLIFFORD LEE ESQ.

 

Court Documents

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

5/1/2018: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

Notice

10/30/2018: Notice

Notice of Ruling

12/17/2018: Notice of Ruling

Motion in Limine

12/17/2018: Motion in Limine

Ex Parte Application

12/18/2018: Ex Parte Application

Motion in Limine

5/30/2019: Motion in Limine

Objection

5/30/2019: Objection

Minute Order

7/5/2019: Minute Order

SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

2/16/2016: SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

ANSWER OF OUT-FIT, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT (DOE 1)

1/4/2017: ANSWER OF OUT-FIT, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT (DOE 1)

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1/9/2017: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

5/17/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Minute Order

7/12/2017: Minute Order

CROSS-DEFENDANT/CROSS- COMPLAINANT OUT-FIT'S UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL TO ALLOW FOR HEARING OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ETC.

7/12/2017: CROSS-DEFENDANT/CROSS- COMPLAINANT OUT-FIT'S UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL TO ALLOW FOR HEARING OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ETC.

MADD DOGG ATHLETICS, INC. DBA PEAK PILATES' ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF FITNESS VENTURES INTERNATIONAL, LLC

8/11/2017: MADD DOGG ATHLETICS, INC. DBA PEAK PILATES' ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF FITNESS VENTURES INTERNATIONAL, LLC

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

9/27/2017: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

10/30/2017: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

DEFENDANT/CROSS-DEFENDANT, MAD DOGG ATHLETICS, INC. DBA PEAK PILATES' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AS TO PLAINTIFF'S CAUSES OF ACTION F

12/5/2017: DEFENDANT/CROSS-DEFENDANT, MAD DOGG ATHLETICS, INC. DBA PEAK PILATES' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AS TO PLAINTIFF'S CAUSES OF ACTION F

129 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/08/2019
  • Opposition (to Plaintiff's Ex Parte to Continue Trial); Filed by Action Property Management, Inc. (Defendant); Azzura Homeowner's Association (DOE 4) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Ex-Parte Proceedings - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (To Postpone Trial); Filed by Mojgan Jadidi (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Ex-Parte Proceedings)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2019
  • Witness List; Filed by Action Property Management, Inc. (Defendant); Azzura Homeowner's Association (DOE 4) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2019
  • Jury Instructions; Filed by Action Property Management, Inc. (Defendant); Azzura Homeowner's Association (DOE 4) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2019
  • Trial Brief; Filed by Action Property Management, Inc. (Defendant); Azzura Homeowner's Association (DOE 4) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2019
  • Statement of the Case; Filed by Action Property Management, Inc. (Defendant); Azzura Homeowner's Association (DOE 4) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
244 More Docket Entries
  • 02/16/2016
  • SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2016
  • Cross-Complaint; Filed by Action Property Management, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2016
  • Summons; Filed by Action Property Management, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2016
  • Answer; Filed by Action Property Management, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2016
  • CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR 1. IMPLIED INDEMNITY; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2016
  • Stipulation and Order; Filed by Action Property Management, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2016
  • STIPULATION TO STRIXE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND ORDER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2015
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by Mojgan Jadidi (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2015
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC603102    Hearing Date: December 13, 2019    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

Mojgan Jadidi,

Plaintiff,

v.

Action Property Management Inc., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC603102

Hearing Date: November 12, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to set aside dismissal

The Court posts this tentative order in advance of the hearing. Any party who does not appear at the hearing shall waive their right to be heard and shall submit to the Court adopting this tentative.

TENTATIVE ORDER

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Mojgan Jadidi (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on December 3, 2015, alleging that she was injured by the exercise equipment at Defendants’ condominium complex. Plaintiff did not appear for trial on July 16, 2019, so the Court dismissed this case pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581(b)(5). Plaintiff raises two issues. First, Plaintiff argues that the Court erred in dismissing her case under Code of Civil Procedure section 581. In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473. Defendants oppose the motion, which is denied.

LEGAL STANDARD

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.” 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.” (Ibid.)   “[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.) 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case has a long procedural history. Plaintiff filed this action on December 3, 2015. The Court granted a stipulation to continue the trial date from June 5, 2017, to October 3, 2017. On June 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed a notice of substitution of counsel and indicated that she would be representing herself. On June 20, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to enforce a settlement, which the Court (Lu, J.) denied. On December 13, 2018, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to deem the Requests for Admission to have been admitted.

On December 18, 2018, Plaintiff, then a self-represented party, moved ex parte to continue the trial date in order to retain counsel. Plaintiff requested a trial date of July 16, 2019, stating: “Plaintiff respectfully requests an order to postpone trial scheduled for January 16th, 2019 to July 16th, 2019, to obtain/retain counsel.” (Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application, at p. 2:9-10.) The Court granted the application and continue the trial from January 16, 2019, to July 16, 2019, at 8:30 a.m.

On July 5, 2019, Plaintiff moved ex parte to continue the trial date and reopen discovery in order to prepare for trial. Plaintiff represented that she is in the process of finding a new attorney. Plaintiff also represented that she will be out-of-the-country due to her son’s wedding on July 14, 2019, and therefore is not available for trial on July 16, 2019. The Court (Seigle, J.) denied the ex parte application due to insufficient notice. Specifically, Plaintiff did not include a proof of service or a declaration stating that she had complied with the notice requirements of California Rules of Court, rules 3.1203 and 3.1204. Also, Plaintiff filed her ex parte application on the same date as the hearing.

The Court held a final status conference on July 2, 2019, but Plaintiff did not appear. Therefore, the Court trailed the final status conference to the trial date. On July 16, 2019, Defendants, by and through their counsel, appeared for trial. Plaintiff did not appear. Therefore, the Court dismissed the case pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581(b)(5), which authorizes the Court to dismiss a case “when either party fails to appear on the trial and the other party appears and asks for dismissal.” Defendants’ counsel made such a motion, and the Court granted that motion.

Plaintiff filed the instant motion, which was noticed for hearing on November 8, 2019. Plaintiff appeared at the hearing with counsel, Mauri L. Reese, Esq., who indicated that she would be representing Plaintiff and requested a continuance. Over Defendant’s counsel’s objection, the Court continued this matter to December 13, 2019, at 1:30 p.m. The Court granted leave for the parties to file supplemental oppositions and reply briefs within statutory time periods. On December 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration, which the Court has reviewed and considered.

DISCUSSION

A. Code of Civil Procedure section 581(b)(5)

Plaintiff argues that the Court erred in dismissing her case under section 581(b)(5). Plaintiff argues that the Court cannot dismiss a case unless the parties personally appear for trial. Plaintiff is incorrect. Defendants appeared through counsel, which is sufficient. (Cohen v. Hughes Markets, Inc. (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1693, 1699-1700.) Parties may appear through their attorneys in civil cases. Indeed, the defendants in this case are not natural persons, meaning they cannot appear personally and must appear through someone else. Therefore, the Court’s order was not erroneous.

B. Code of Civil Procedure section 473

In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks relief under section 473. Plaintiff represents that she attended her son’s wedding in Israel on July 14, 2019. (See Declaration of Mojgan Jadidi, ¶ 2.) Plaintiff represents that her original return flight was scheduled for July 24, 2019, but she got a return flight on July 18, 2019. (Id., ¶ 4.)

The Court denies relief because Plaintiff is responsible for this problem. As an initial matter, Plaintiff (not Defendants or the Court) selected the trial date of July 16, 2019. This is the date Plaintiff selected. Plaintiff is bound by her choice.

In her supplemental declaration, Plaintiff represents that she first learned on June 17, 2019, that her son would be getting married in Israel. (Supplemental Declaration of Mojgan Jadidi, ¶ 7.) Plaintiff represents that she contacted opposing counsel on June 25, 2019 to attempt to reschedule the trial. (Id., ¶ 8.) Regardless, Plaintiff did not take advantage of numerous opportunities to reschedule the trial. Plaintiff did not file an ex parte application seeking a trial continuance between June 17, 2019 (when she first learned about the upcoming wedding) and July 2, 2019 (the date of the final status conference). Had Plaintiff done so, the Court could have considered and accommodated Plaintiff’s scheduling issues. But Plaintiff failed to do so.

Plaintiff did not appear at the final status conference on July 2, 2019, as required by the Court’s First Amended Standing Order Re: Final Status Conference, Personal Injury (“PI”) Courts, then in effect. Had Plaintiff appeared at the final status conference, the Court could have discussed the scheduling issues with the parties and continued the trial if necessary to accommodate Plaintiff’s travel. But Plaintiff failed to do so.

Then, on July 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application and sought a hearing that same date without providing proof that she provided proper notice to Defendants. The Court had no choice but to deny this ex parte application for procedural defects. Plaintiff notified Defendants’ counsel on July 5, 2019, that she intended to have the ex parte application re-heard on July 8, 2019. (Declaration of Brad M. Elder Exh. G.) Then, on July 8, 2019, she notified Defendants’ counsel that she would not be seeking relief. (Id., Exh. H.) Defendants’ counsel requested that Plaintiff provide proper notice if she intends to seek ex parte relief before leaving for her son’s wedding on July 10, 2019. (Id., Exh. I.)

Plaintiff sought no relief before leaving for Israel. Nor did Plaintiff meet-and-confer concerning the required joint trial documents. (Id., ¶ 17 & Exh. J.) Instead, she chose to travel to Israel based upon the belief she could change her flight and return in time for trial. Plaintiff admits in her declaration that her travel arrangements “had been made and paid for long before [the trial date].” (Declaration of Mojgan Jadidi, ¶ 2.) Plaintiff had ample opportunity to seek a continuance of the trial date, but chose not to do so, and failed to appear at the final status conference at which she could have made an oral request for a continuance.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court cannot conclude that there has been any surprise, mistake, or excusable neglect. Indeed, the record reflects that Plaintiff was dilatory in seeking a continuance of the trial date, and then elected to travel to Israel in hopes of resolving the issue later. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion.

Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the dismissal of this action is denied. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: December 13, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC603102    Hearing Date: November 12, 2019    Dept: 5

ORDER #1 of 2

MOJGAN JADIDI,

Plaintiff,

v.

ACTION PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC603102

order CORRECTINg typographical error in COURT’S order of September 11, 2019 NUNC PRO TUNC

Plaintiff Mojgan Jadidi (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on December 3, 2015, asserting causes of action for premises liability and negligence against Defendant Action Property Management, Inc. and Azzurra Homeowners’ Association (“Defendants”). On December 18, 2018, Plaintiff, then a self-represented party, moved ex parte to continue the trial date in order to retain counsel. The Court (Lu, J.) granted the application and continue the trial from January 16, 2019, to July 16, 2019, at 8:30 a.m. Although Plaintiff was present, the Court ordered Defendants to provide notice of the trial continuance. Defendants did so by serving Plaintiff at both her physical address and her mailing address.

On July 5, 2019, Plaintiff moved ex parte to continue the trial date and reopen discovery in order to prepare for trial. Plaintiff also represented that she will be out-of-the-country due to her son’s wedding on July 14, 2019, and therefore is not available for trial on July 16, 2019. The Court (Seigle, J.) denied the ex parte application due to insufficient notice, though Defendant filed an opposition three days later. Defendants then filed trial documents and appeared for trial, by and through counsel, on July 16, 2019. Plaintiff did not appear for trial. Therefore, the Court (Goorvitch, J.) granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581(b)(5).

On September 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled: “Objection to Ruling of Dismissal Not in Compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 581(b)(5).” The Court issued an order on September 11, 2019, striking the “objection.” In the order, the Court wrote:

“Plaintiff argued that Defendants’ counsel appeared at trial, but section 581(b)(5) requires Defendants to appear personally before the Court can dismiss the case. Plaintiff’s reading of section 581(b)(5) is correct. Regardless, if Plaintiff believes the Court erred in its order, an objection is not the proper procedural means to raise the issue. Therefore, the Court strikes Plaintiff’s objection without prejudice to Plaintiff seeking relief through a noticed motion.”

The Court made a typographical error. The Court intended to write: “Plaintiff’s reading of section 581(b)(5) is incorrect.” Therefore, the Court makes this correction nunc pro tunc. The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.

DATED: November 8, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

ORDER #2 of 2

Mojgan Jadidi,

Plaintiff,

v.

Action Property Management Inc., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC603102

Hearing Date: November 12, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to set aside dismissal

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Mojgan Jadidi (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on December 3, 2015, alleging that she was injured by the exercise equipment at Defendants’ condominium complex. Plaintiff did not appear for trial on July 16, 2019, so the Court dismissed this case pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581(b)(5). Plaintiff raises two issues. First, Plaintiff argues that the Court erred in dismissing her case under Code of Civil Procedure section 581. In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473. Defendants oppose the motion, which is denied.

LEGAL STANDARD

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.” 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.” (Ibid.)   “[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.) 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case has a long procedural history. Plaintiff filed this action on December 3, 2015. The Court granted a stipulation to continue the trial date from June 5, 2017, to October 3, 2017. On June 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed a notice of substitution of counsel and indicated that she would be representing herself. On June 20, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to enforce a settlement, which the Court (Lu, J.) denied. On December 13, 2018, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to deem the Requests for Admission to have been admitted.

On December 18, 2018, Plaintiff, then a self-represented party, moved ex parte to continue the trial date in order to retain counsel. Plaintiff requested a trial date of July 16, 2019, stating: “Plaintiff respectfully requests an order to postpone trial scheduled for January 16th, 2019 to July 16th, 2019, to obtain/retain counsel.” (Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application, at p. 2:9-10.) The Court granted the application and continue the trial from January 16, 2019, to July 16, 2019, at 8:30 a.m.

On July 5, 2019, Plaintiff moved ex parte to continue the trial date and reopen discovery in order to prepare for trial. Plaintiff represented that she is in the process of finding a new attorney. Plaintiff also represented that she will be out-of-the-country due to her son’s wedding on July 14, 2019, and therefore is not available for trial on July 16, 2019. The Court (Seigle, J.) denied the ex parte application due to insufficient notice. Specifically, Plaintiff did not include a proof of service or a declaration stating that she had complied with the notice requirements of California Rules of Court, rules 3.1203 and 3.1204. Also, Plaintiff filed her ex parte application on the same date as the hearing.

The Court held a final status conference on July 2, 2019, but Plaintiff did not appear. Therefore, the Court trailed the final status conference to the trial date. On July 16, 2019, Defendants, by and through their counsel, appeared for trial. Plaintiff did not appear. Therefore, the Court dismissed the case pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581(b)(5), which authorizes the Court to dismiss a case “when either party fails to appear on the trial and the other party appears and asks for dismissal.” Defendants’ counsel made such a motion, and the Court granted that motion.

DISCUSSION

A. Code of Civil Procedure section 581(b)(5)

Plaintiff argues that the Court erred in dismissing her case under section 581(b)(5). Plaintiff argues that the Court cannot dismiss a case unless the parties personally appear for trial. Plaintiff is incorrect. Defendants appeared through counsel, which is sufficient. (Cohen v. Hughes Markets, Inc. (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1693, 1699-1700.) Parties may appear through their attorneys in civil cases. Indeed, the defendants in this case are not natural persons, meaning they cannot appear personally and must appear through someone else. Therefore, the Court’s order was not erroneous.

B. Code of Civil Procedure section 473

In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks relief under section 473. Plaintiff represents that she attended her son’s wedding in Israel on July 14, 2019. (See Declaration of Mojgan Jadidi, ¶ 2.) Plaintiff represents that her original return flight was scheduled for July 24, 2019, but she got a return flight on July 18, 2019. (Id., ¶ 4.)

The Court denies relief because Plaintiff is responsible for this problem. As an initial matter, Plaintiff (not Defendants or the Court) selected the trial date of July 16, 2019. This is the date Plaintiff selected. Plaintiff is bound by her choice, and she provides nothing in her declaration suggesting that she learned about the wedding after she selected this date.

Putting that aside, Plaintiff did not take advantage of numerous opportunities to reschedule the trial. Plaintiff did not seek to continue the trial during the first six months of 2019. Plaintiff had ample time to file an ex parte application to continue the trial date.

Nor did Plaintiff appear at the final status conference on July 2, 2019, as required by the Court’s First Amended Standing Order Re: Final Status Conference, Personal Injury (“PI”) Courts, then in effect. Had Plaintiff appeared at the final status conference, the Court could have discussed the scheduling issues with the parties and continued the trial if necessary to accommodate Plaintiff’s travel. But Plaintiff failed to appear.

Then, on July 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application and sought a hearing that same date without providing proof that she provided proper notice to Defendants. The Court had no choice but to deny this ex parte application for procedural defects. Plaintiff notified Defendants’ counsel on July 5, 2019, that she intended to have the ex parte application re-heard on July 8, 2019. (Declaration of Brad M. Elder Exh. G.) Then, on July 8, 2019, she notified Defendants’ counsel that she would not be seeking relief. (Id., Exh. H.) Defendants’ counsel requested that Plaintiff provide proper notice if she intends to seek ex parte relief before leaving for her son’s wedding on July 10, 2019. (Id., Exh. I.)

Plaintiff sought no relief before leaving for Israel. Nor did Plaintiff meet-and-confer concerning the required joint trial documents. (Id., ¶ 17 & Exh. J.) Instead, she chose to travel to Israel based upon the belief she could change her flight and return in time for trial. Plaintiff admits in her declaration that her travel arrangements “had been made and paid for long before [the trial date].” (Declaration of Mojgan Jadidi, ¶ 2.) Plaintiff had ample opportunity to seek a continuance of the trial date, but chose not to do so, and failed to appear at the final status conference at which she could have made an oral request for a continuance.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court cannot conclude that there has been any surprise, mistake, or excusable neglect. Indeed, the record reflects that Plaintiff was dilatory in seeking a continuance of the trial date, and then elected to travel to Israel in hopes of resolving the issue. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion.

Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the dismissal of this action is denied. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.