This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/08/2019 at 02:45:53 (UTC).

EDNA B FULLER VS FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA INC

Case Summary

On 02/06/2018 a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury case was filed by EDNA B FULLER against FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA INC in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3083

  • Filing Date:

    02/06/2018

  • 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

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

FULLER EDNA B.

Defendants and Respondents

FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA INC

DOES 1 TO 50

 

Court Documents

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

2/6/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

2/6/2018: ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

SUMMONS

2/6/2018: SUMMONS

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/06/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Edna B. Fuller (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Edna B. Fuller (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • Request to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Edna B. Fuller (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • Summons; Filed by Edna B. Fuller (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • Request-Waive Court Fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • Request to Waive Court Fees

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC693083    Hearing Date: November 05, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion to Set Aside Dismissal

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

BACKGROUND

On February 6, 2018, Plaintiff Edna B. Fuller (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Alpha Beta Company d.b.a. Food 4 Less (“Defendant”) alleging negligence and premises liability for an incident that occurred on February 8, 2016.

On August 6, 2019, the Court dismissed the complaint due to the parties’ failure to appear for trial and communicate with the Court as to why there were no appearances.

On September 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the August 6, 2019 dismissal pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b).

PARTIES REQUEST

Plaintiff asks the Court to set aside the August 6, 2019 dismissal on the ground that Plaintiffs counsel’s law clerk failed to calendar trial causing Plaintiff’s counsel to fail to appear for trial.

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 . . . dismissal . . . 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 . . . dismissal . . . . 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.)

“The court shall, whenever relief is granted based on attorney’s affidavit of fault, direct the attorney to pay reasonable compensatory legal fees and costs to opposing counsel or parties.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 473, subd. (b).)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs counsel declares that his law clerk, Lance, failed to calendar trial, which caused Plaintiff’s counsel to not appear at trial and this action be dismissed.  (Falese Decl., ¶ 2, 4.)  Defendant argues relief cannot be granted on a discretionary ground because Plaintiff’s counsel has delayed in pursuing the matters in this case, such as by failing to serve Defendant with the complaint for a year and a half and failing to file this motion for two months.

Defendant fails to address the mandatory relief provision within California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b).  Considering the standards under this provision, the Court finds Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration of fault is sufficient to show mistake or neglect by Plaintiff’s attorney.  As a result, relief from the August 6, 2019 dismissal is mandatory.

Plaintiffs motion is GRANTED.

The Court sets aside the August 6, 2019 dismissal, and schedules a Trial Setting Conference for December 5, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 4A.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.