This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/31/2019 at 06:59:07 (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, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MARC D. GROSS and MARK C. KIM. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9201

  • Filing Date:

    02/06/2017

  • 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 Judges

MARC D. GROSS

MARK C. KIM

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MACIAS ARMANDO

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

Defendant Attorneys

BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP

SKANE ELIZABETH A

SKANE WILCOX LLP

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

11/21/2017: Minute Order

Minute Order

12/7/2017: Minute Order

Unknown

12/7/2017: Unknown

Notice of Ruling

12/15/2017: Notice of Ruling

Case Management Statement

1/12/2018: Case Management Statement

Summons

3/23/2018: Summons

Unknown

4/23/2018: Unknown

Request for Judicial Notice

4/23/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Unknown

4/23/2018: Unknown

Unknown

4/23/2018: Unknown

Unknown

6/29/2018: Unknown

Unknown

11/7/2018: Unknown

Ex Parte Application

3/27/2019: Ex Parte Application

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

2/6/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

9/1/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

10/19/2017: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

Minute Order

11/21/2017: Minute Order

Proof of Service

11/22/2017: Proof of Service

67 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/13/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2019
  • Order (proposed order to continue the trial); Filed by VENTURA TRANSFER COMPANY (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to continue trial) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to continue trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (to continue trial); Filed by VENTURA TRANSFER COMPANY (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Rescheduled by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
182 More Docket Entries
  • 09/01/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

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

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

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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2017
  • Complaint

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

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

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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2017
  • SUMMONS

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

    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.