Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/02/2019 at 04:56:35 (UTC).

EMELIO SANCHEZ VS HAMJPARK DTAL RESTAURANT ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/02/2017 EMELIO SANCHEZ filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against HAMJPARK DTAL RESTAURANT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is DALILA CORRAL LYONS. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9014

  • Filing Date:

    02/02/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Wrongful Termination

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

DALILA CORRAL LYONS

 

Party Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Cross Defendant

SANCHEZ EMELIO

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

HAMJPARK DTAL RESTAURANT

KIM DOE

CHO ADAM

KIM MIMI

DOES 1 TO 100

DOE 1

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

REISNER ADAM ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

TSUEI MATTHEW H.

 

Court Documents

PLAINTIFF EMELIO SANCHEZ'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO DEFENDANT DOE KIM'S CROSS COMPLAINT

1/16/2018: PLAINTIFF EMELIO SANCHEZ'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO DEFENDANT DOE KIM'S CROSS COMPLAINT

Minute Order

1/31/2018: Minute Order

RULING

3/14/2018: RULING

Motion to Compel Discovery

1/31/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery

Declaration

3/14/2019: Declaration

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

3/25/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

3/25/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

3/25/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

3/26/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Exhibit List

4/8/2019: Exhibit List

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

2/14/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

2/14/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

Unknown

5/17/2017: Unknown

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

5/26/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

5/26/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Minute Order

8/3/2017: Minute Order

NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF EMELIO SANCHEZ: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

8/16/2017: NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF EMELIO SANCHEZ: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

9/15/2017: DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

82 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/15/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department 20, Dalila Corral Lyons, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • at 08:33 AM in Department 20, Dalila Corral Lyons, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 20, Dalila Corral Lyons, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (failure by cross-complainant, to proceed with entry of default against cross-defendant Emilio Sanchez; and/or failure by said cross-defendant to file a response to the cross-complaint) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 20, Dalila Corral Lyons, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 20, Dalila Corral Lyons, Presiding; Status Conference (reSettlement) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 20, Dalila Corral Lyons, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (why this court should not impose sanctions against plaintiff, for failure to proceed with entry of default against defendantHamjipark Corporation, only (Doe 1) and/or failure by said defendant to file a response to the First Amended Complaint) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • Minute Order ( (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING FAILURE BY CROSS-COMPLAINANT, T...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING FAILURE BY CROSS-COMPLAINANT, T...) of 04/09/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • Declaration ( of Jared Irmas, Esq. Re: Meet and Confer on Joint Trial Documents); Filed by Emelio Sanchez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • Notice of Settlement of Entire Case; Filed by Emelio Sanchez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
181 More Docket Entries
  • 03/06/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2017
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: (1) RACE/NATIONAL ORIGIN HARASSMENT, VIOLATION OF CAL. COY. CODE 12940 ET SEQ.; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC649014    Hearing Date: August 07, 2020    Dept: 20

Tentative Ruling

Judge David J. Cowan

Department 20


Hearing Date: Friday, August 7, 2020

Case Name: Emelio Sanchez v. Hamjipark Dtal Restaurant et al.

Case No.: BC649014

Motion: Vacate Dismissal

Moving Party: Plaintiff Sanchez

Responding Party: *UNOPPOSED*

Notice: OK


Ruling: The Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Plaintiff to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LA Court Connect rather than in person in view of the COVID-19 pandemic.


BACKGROUND

 

On February 2, 2017, Plaintiff Emelio Sanchez filed a Complaint against Defendants Hamjipark Dtal Restaurant, Mimi Kim, Adam Cho, Doe Kim, and unnamed Does, stating claims for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, and Labor Code violations arising out of Plaintiff’s employment and termination thereof by Defendants.

On April 9, 2019, following negotiations with Defendants, Plaintiff Sanchez filed a Notice of Settlement.

On June 28, 2019, the Court ordered the entire case dismissed without prejudice pursuant to the Notice of Settlement.

On July 22, 2019, Plaintiff executed the written Settlement Agreement. Defendants did not execute the Settlement Agreement at this time. In the following months, Plaintiff’s counsel sought several times to have Defendants execute the Settlement, to no avail.

On April 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Set Aside the June 28 dismissal.

On May 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Reply in support of his Motion to Set Aside, noting only that Defendants had not filed an Opposition. Defendants did not subsequently file an Opposition.

DISCUSSION

 

Plaintiff seeks relief from the Court’s June 28 dismissal without prejudice of the entire case after Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement. CCP sec. 473(b) provides that the Court may “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.” However, the motion for relief must “be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” A party who seeks discretionary relief under section 473 “on the basis of mistake or inadvertence of counsel must demonstrate that such mistake, inadvertence, or general neglect was excusable because the negligence of the attorney is imputed to his client and may not be offered by the latter as a basis for relief.” (Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 249, 258; Jackson v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 166, 174 (the “discretionary provision may apply to cases involving attorney mistake only when the mistake is excusable.”)) Thus, the party seeking discretionary relief has the burden to show that the attorney’s mistake was “excusable.” (Id.; Huh v. Wang (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1423 (“the proffered evidence must show that the attorney's error was excusable.”)) “Where the mistake is excusable and the party seeking relief has been diligent, courts have often granted relief pursuant to the discretionary relief provision . . . if no prejudice to the opposing party will ensue.” (Zamora, supra, 28 Cal.4th at 258.)

It is unclear to the Court that this motion was timely brought “within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months” after the order of dismissal. The Motion was filed on April 21, 2020, roughly ten months after the Court’s dismissal order on June 28, 2019. “The six-month time limit for granting statutory relief is jurisdictional and the court may not consider a motion for relief made after that period has elapsed.” (Manson, Iver & York v. Black (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 36, 42.) Plaintiff’s moving papers do not address the timeliness of the motion, nor did Defendants raise this issue because they failed to file an opposition. The Court cannot ignore this issue because it is “jurisdictional,” not discretionary. (See Arambula v. Union Carbide Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 333, 340 (“a court has no authority to grant relief under section 473, subdivision (b), unless an application is made within the six-month period.”))

Nonetheless, the timeliness of this motion does not appear dispositive here because the case was dismissed without prejudice. There does not appear to be anything precluding Plaintiff from initiating the case anew against Defendants for the specific purpose of enforcing the settlement agreement. “The policy of law is to have every litigated case tried upon its merits, and it looks with disfavor upon a party, who, regardless of the merits of the case, attempts to take advantage of the mistake, surprise, inadvertence, or neglect of his adversary.” (Weitz v. Ynakosky (1966) 63 Cal.2d 849, 855.) The undisputed evidence in support of this Motion shows Defendants agreed to sign the Settlement but have unjustifiably refused for over a year now to execute it. There is no evidence that Defendants will be prejudiced by Plaintiff seeking to enforce the Settlement—which Defendants apparently already agreed to sign.

The Motion is therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as untimely. However, as the case was dismissed without prejudice, it appears that the case may be reopened consistent with the dismissal—at least for the purpose of seeking enforcement of the settlement.

CONCLUSION

 

The Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Plaintiff to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LA Court Connect rather than in person in view of the COVID-19 pandemic.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer REISNER ADAM ESQ.