Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/25/2021 at 20:55:49 (UTC).

ARMANDO MACIAS VS TRIMAC TRANS SERVICES INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/06/2017 ARMANDO MACIAS filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against TRIMAC TRANS SERVICES INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MARC D. GROSS and MARK C. KIM. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9201

  • Filing Date:

    02/06/2017

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MARC D. GROSS

MARK C. KIM

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

MACIAS ARMANDO

NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendants and Respondents

FRIEGHT LINES INC

TRIMAC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES INC

THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY

VENTURA TRANSFER COMPANY

OAK HARBOR

DOES 1 TO 50

HARBOR OAK

TRIMAC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES INC.

FRIEGHT LINES INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

RUSSELL CHRISTOPHER E. ESQ.

LAZARUS MARC

RUSSELL & LAZARUS APC

SUSSON MARK

Defendant Attorneys

BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP

SKANE ELIZABETH A

SKANE WILCOX LLP

MOORHEAD JOHN

 

Court Documents

Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal

9/23/2019: Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

3/27/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Notice of Settlement

3/30/2020: Notice of Settlement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL)

6/1/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER ENTERED: 2017-12-07 00:00:00

12/7/2017: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER ENTERED: 2017-12-07 00:00:00

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: NOTICE

12/7/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: NOTICE

Notice of Ruling - NOTICE OF RULING RE TRANSFER OF ACTION

12/15/2017: Notice of Ruling - NOTICE OF RULING RE TRANSFER OF ACTION

Case Management Statement

1/12/2018: Case Management Statement

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: DECLARATION

4/23/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: DECLARATION

Request for Judicial Notice

4/23/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: DECLARATION

4/23/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: DECLARATION

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: DEMURRER

4/23/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: DEMURRER

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Opposition

6/29/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Opposition

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

11/7/2018: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

3/27/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

9/1/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL -

10/19/2017: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL -

Proof of Service -

11/22/2017: Proof of Service -

94 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/05/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by New Hampshire Insurance Company (Plaintiff in Intervention)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by ARMANDO MACIAS (Plaintiff); New Hampshire Insurance Company (Plaintiff in Intervention)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
222 More Docket Entries
  • 09/01/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2017
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by ARMANDO MACIAS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2017
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by ARMANDO MACIAS (Plaintiff); Armando Macias (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by ARMANDO MACIAS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by ARMANDO MACIAS (Plaintiff); Armando Macias (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC649201    Hearing Date: November 14, 2019    Dept: S27

None of the parties appeared for a final status conference (“FSC”) scheduled for July 3, 2019. The court continued the FSC to the day of trial, July 8, and the clerk served a minute order on July 3, 2019.

No party appeared for trial on July 8 and the court dismissed the case without prejudice pursuant to CCP §581(b)(3). A minute order was duly served by the clerk of the court. Plaintiff acknowledges receipt of the order of dismissal.

Plaintiff did not seek relief until September 23, 2019 when the present motion was filed. Plaintiff made no effort to secure an earlier date for hearing by ex parte application and another six weeks have elapsed since the motion was filed. Plaintiff now seeks discretionary relief pursuant to CCP §473(b).

The complaint was filed on February 6, 2017 and the case is over two and one-half years old.

Had Plaintiff’s counsel sought relief under the provision for dismissal due to attorney fault, relief would be mandatory.

Counsel’s assertion of “excusable neglect” is a rather cavalier assessment of the situation.

Plaintiff’s counsel explains he thought a notice of settlement had been filed and that is why no one appeared at the FSC. He further explains that due to the July 4th holiday (a Thursday) and his office’s closure on July 5th resulted in non-receipt of the court’s July 3 minute order until after the dismissal on the morning of July 8. A diligent attorney would have sought relief promptly by way of an ex parte application the same week. But counsel asserts he did not “immediately” seek relief because a settlement “in principle” had been pending since June and an informal settlement conference was set for August 23 at which time counsel expected the settlement would be finalized. As is often the case with expectancies, the settlement fell through. Counsel waited another month after that before seeking relief. He later

recognized that a notice of settlement had not been filed.

As noted, had counsel invoked the attorney fault provision relief would be mandatory. Instead he characterizes his conduct as “accidental and excusable.” That might be true if relief had been sought promptly. An expectation of settlement is not an excusable reason for letting a dismissal stand for months, and then waiting yet another month to file for relief with a hearing set another six weeks later.

The court would be well justified in denying discretionary relief. Given that the law abhors a forfeit, the court will not punish the Plaintiff for his attorney’s lack of diligence. Moreover, Defendant Venture Transfer Company indicates it does not oppose relief from dismissal but raises a point of which this court was unaware: Defendant Plaintiff filed an identical lawsuit BC649542. The court grants the request for judicial notice of that complaint. The court also takes notice that Judge Siegle recently discharged on OSC and re-set BC649542 on its active calendar after a settlement fell through and the minute order indicates Plaintiff now intends to file a notice of related case. Defendant argues Plaintiff should not be permitted to maintain two separate actions. This court has no power to dismiss BC649542. Once a notice of related cases is filed both cases can be coordinated in a single courtroom. It is up to Defendant to take action or file a motion. However, the court can consider whether to vacate the dismissal if there is another identical action. The court will take argument on this point before reaching a final decision.

If the court grants relief due to mistake, as the original failure to appear for trial was excusable, even if counsel’s subsequent delay in relief was not. Trial will be set on a shortest possible time frame on a date when Defense counsel is not scheduled to be engaged.

Pursuant to CCP §473(c)(1)(A) the court will consider imposition of a penalty not to exceed $1,000 against Marc Lazarus, only (and not the client) if relief is granted.