This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/20/2018 at 20:02:32 (UTC).

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTO CLUB VS KIMBERLY GOOSEN

Case Summary

On 01/04/2017 INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTO CLUB filed a Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle lawsuit against KIMBERLY GOOSEN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MARC D. GROSS. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5590

  • Filing Date:

    01/04/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MARC D. GROSS

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTO CLUB

Defendants and Respondents

GOOSEN KIMBERLY

DOES 1 TO 100

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

MENDELSON LEE M. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

COMPLAINT FOR MONEY 1. SUBROGATION CLAIM 2. INDEBTEDNESS

1/4/2017: COMPLAINT FOR MONEY 1. SUBROGATION CLAIM 2. INDEBTEDNESS

SUMMONS

1/4/2017: SUMMONS

DECLARATION OF NON SERVICE

2/3/2017: DECLARATION OF NON SERVICE

DECLARATION OF NON SERVICE

6/27/2017: DECLARATION OF NON SERVICE

DECLARATION OF NON SERVICE

10/12/2017: DECLARATION OF NON SERVICE

Minute Order

7/5/2018: Minute Order

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/05/2018
  • at 08:30 am in Department SS3, Marc D. Gross, Presiding; Jury Trial - Case Dismissed/Disposed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2018
  • at 10:00 am in Department SS3, Marc D. Gross, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Off Calendar

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2017
  • Declaration (of non service ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2017
  • Declaration (OF NON SERVICE "BY FAX" ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2017
  • Declaration (OF NON SERVICE ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2017
  • Declaration (OF NON SERVICE ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2017
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC645590    Hearing Date: January 22, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTO CLUB,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

KIMBERLY GOOSEN, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC645590

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

January 22, 2020

Plaintiff, Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club filed this action against Defendant, Kimberly Goosen for subrogation. Plaintiff filed the complaint on 1/04/17. Plaintiff filed numerous declarations of non-service. On 7/05/18, the Court called the case for trial. No party appeared, and the Court dismissed the case.

On 11/15/18, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal. The motion was premised on Plaintiff’s attorney’s declaration that the failure to appear at the trial was due to a calendar error in his office. Plaintiff’s attorney also declared the case could likely settle.

On 3/18/19, the Court heard an OSC re: sanctions and/or dismissal. Plaintiff appeared and indicated it was seeking an order to serve by publication. The Court continued the matter to 6/19/19. On 6/19/19, the Court called the matter for hearing. The application for publication had not been ruled on, and the Court continued the matter to 9/25/19. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file an opposition to the OSC at least five days prior to the hearing. On 7/05/19, the Court rejected the request to serve Defendant by publication.

On 9/25/19, Plaintiff failed to appear and the Court dismissed the action with prejudice; notably, Plaintiff also did not file opposition to the OSC at least five days prior to the hearing, as ordered.

At this time, Plaintiff again moves to vacate the dismissal. Plaintiff’s attorney declares he hired an appearance attorney to appear on 9/25/19, and the appearance attorney failed to appear due to a scheduling conflict. Counsel declares he believes the case can be settled. Counsel’s declaration is silent concerning the failure to file the required opposition to the OSC at least five days prior to the hearing.

The motion to vacate the dismissal is denied. The action has been pending since 1/04/17, more than three years, and Plaintiff has not effectuated service. Pursuant to CCP §§583.210 and 583.250, dismissal of the action is mandatory where, as here, the summons and complaint have not been served within three years after the action was filed. Thus, any order vacating the dismissal would be a nullity, as the Court would be obligated to immediately dismiss the action again due to the running of the mandatory dismissal statute.

Because Defendant has not appeared in the action, no notice of this ruling is necessary.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.