This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/27/2019 at 16:58:43 (UTC).

SOOK KYUNG HA VS YOUNG KIM ET AL

Case Summary

On 08/30/2016 SOOK KYUNG HA filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against YOUNG KIM. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1668

  • Filing Date:

    08/30/2016

  • 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

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

HA SOOK KYUNG

Defendants and Respondents

CAJUN

DOES 1 TO 25

KIM YOUNG

TRITON SOURCING INC.

CHANG SCOTT

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN W. TOPPILA

TOPPILA BRIAN WALTER

Defendant Attorney

OH HYUN H. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Proof of Service

1/16/2018: Proof of Service

ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (CENTRAL DISTRICT)

1/22/2018: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (CENTRAL DISTRICT)

NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE

1/26/2018: NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE

Minute Order

2/22/2018: Minute Order

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING JUNE 28, 2018 TRIAL; ETC

6/5/2018: EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING JUNE 28, 2018 TRIAL; ETC

MINUTE ORDER

6/6/2018: MINUTE ORDER

Minute Order

9/25/2018: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

9/25/2018: Notice of Ruling

Proof of Service by Mail

10/5/2018: Proof of Service by Mail

Minute Order

10/5/2018: Minute Order

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

11/30/2018: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

12/19/2018: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

2/6/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

3/25/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Minute Order

3/25/2019: Minute Order

SUMMONS

8/30/2016: SUMMONS

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

1/27/2017: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

DEFENDANTS YOUNG KIM, TRITON SOURCING INC., AND SCOTT CHANG'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

5/5/2017: DEFENDANTS YOUNG KIM, TRITON SOURCING INC., AND SCOTT CHANG'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

15 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/25/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (for Failure to Enter enter Judgment) - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to Enter Defaul...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2019
  • Request for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Sook Kyung Ha (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2019
  • Amended Proof of Service of Summons; Filed by Sook Kyung Ha (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2019
  • Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2018
  • Request for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Sook Kyung Ha (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2018
  • Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (for Failure to Enter enter Judgment) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2018
  • Minute Order ((Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to Enter enter ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2018
  • Request for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Sook Kyung Ha (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
38 More Docket Entries
  • 02/06/2017
  • Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Sook Kyung Ha (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2017
  • AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2017
  • AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2017
  • Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2016
  • Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Sook Kyung Ha (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES PERSONAL INJURIES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Sook Kyung Ha (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC631668    Hearing Date: February 11, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion to Set Aside Dismissal

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

On August 30, 2016, Plaintiff Sook Kyung Ha (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Young Kim and Cajun alleging negligence and negligent inspection, service, or maintenance for being thrown from a bed on a yacht on March 27, 2016.

On January 27, 2017, Plaintiff amended her complaint to name Defendants Triton Sourcing Inc. as Doe 1 and Scott Chang as Doe 2.

On March 25, 2019, the Court entered default against Defendant Triton Sourcing, Inc.

On May 29, 2019, the Court dismissed the complaint as to Does 1-25 without prejudice.

On June 27, 2019, Plaintiff dismissed the complaint as to Plaintiff Cajun with prejudice.

On January 14, 2020, the Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

On January 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the January 14, 2020 dismissal pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b).

PARTY’S REQUEST

Plaintiff asks the Court to set aside the January 14, 2020 dismissal because Plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear at the January 14, 2020 OSC due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s error.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) states: “The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a[n] . . . other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.  Application for this relief . . . shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the . . . other proceeding was taken. . . .”  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. . . .”

Relief is mandatory when an attorney files the required affidavit, even if the attorney's neglect was inexcusable.  (Carmel, Ltd. v. Tavoussi (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 393, 401 (setting aside a default entered when the attorney failed to file an answer).)  No reason need be given for the existence of one of these circumstances and attestation that one of these reasons existed is sufficient to obtain relief, unless the trial court finds that the dismissal did not occur because of these reasons.  (Graham v. Beers (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1656, 1660.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s counsel declares the January 14, 2020 OSC date was not calendared due to an oversight.  (Lee Decl., ¶ 6.)  Plaintiff’s counsel also declares that the supplemental information requested for Plaintiff’s default judgment packet was not submitted before the January 14, 2020 OSC because both the previous handling attorney and paralegal left the firm.  (Ibid.)

The Court finds Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration of fault is sufficient.  Plaintiff’s counsel did not submit a default judgment packet because of the firm’s failure to properly assign work to another attorney in the firm.  Further, Plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear at the January 14, 2020 OSC date to explain this because of Plaintiff’s counsel’s calendaring error.  As such, the motion must be granted.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.

The January 14, 2020 dismissal is VACATED.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to File Default Judgment Pursuant to CRC 3.740 is scheduled for April 13, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28 in Spring Street Courthouse located at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.