CHRISTIAN FRAZIER PRINCE VS KAYDEN MATTHEW DENBESTEN ET AL

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On January 5, 2017, Plaintiff Christian Frazier Prince filed this action against Kayden Matthew Denbesten and Steve Denbesten.  On October 2, 2019, the Court issued an order granting Defendants’ motions to compel Plaintiff’s written discovery responses.  On December 27, 2019, the Court imposed terminating sanctions on Plaintiff for failure to serve discovery responses in compliance with the October 2, 2019 Order. On June 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed this application for relief from dismissal on the grounds of attorney fault.  On February 22, the Court continued the hearing on this application to allow Defendants to file an opposition.  

“The court may, upon any terms as may be just, 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)  Application for this relief shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.  (Ibid.)  “[T]he 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.”  (Ibid.)

Typically, when the requisite sworn statement of attorney fault is presented, the court shall “vacate¿any¿... resulting default judgment or¿dismissal entered¿against his or her client.”¿(Rodriguez v. Brill¿(2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 715, 725.) However, an application for mandatory relief from a terminating sanction imposed for failing to provide discovery responses is only in proper form if accompanied by verified responses to the discovery in question. Such service would demonstrate a willingness and ability to comply with discovery requests and related orders and demonstrate that pending discovery would not be a source of further delay. (Id., 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 729 .) The phrase “in proper form” is also satisfied by substantial compliance, which is demonstrated with a willingness and ability to comply with the procedural requirements that led to the dismissal. (Id.)

This Motion to set aside dismissal was timely filed within six months of dismissal.  However, the dismissal was entered pursuant to a motion for terminating sanctions based on Plaintiff’s failure to serve discovery responses as ordered.  No substantially-compliant discovery responses have been submitted to the Court.  

Accordingly, the Application to set aside dismissal is DENIED.  

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  

Dated this 25th day of March 2021

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On January 5, 2017, Plaintiff Christian Frazier Prince filed this action against Kayden Matthew Denbesten and Steve Denbesten.  On October 2, 2019, the Court issued an order granting Defendants’ motions to compel Plaintiff’s written discovery responses.  On December 27, 2019, the Court imposed terminating sanctions on Plaintiff for failure to serve discovery responses in compliance with the October 2, 2019 Order. On June 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed this application for relief from dismissal on the grounds of attorney fault. 

“The court may, upon any terms as may be just, 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)  Application for this relief shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.  (Ibid.)  “[T]he 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.”  (Ibid.)

This Motion to set aside dismissal was timely filed within six months of dismissal and the Court finds dismissal was due to counsel’s excusable neglect.  The unopposed Motion to set aside the December 27, 2019 dismissal is GRANTED and the action is reinstated.  Trial is set for September 15, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 27 and the final status conference is set for September 1, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 27.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  

Dated this 22nd day of February 2021

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

The Notice of Motion does not identify a hearing date or time.  The Court recognizes this Motion was filed on June 19, 2020 when the Court Reservation System was unavailable.  Therefore, the hearing is continued to February 22, 2021 so that Plaintiff may give notice.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  

Dated this 21st day of January 2021