On 03/08/2017 JAYNA JOHNSON filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against CARLOS ALVARADO GONZALEZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MARK A. BORENSTEIN and JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Disposed - Dismissed
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
MARK A. BORENSTEIN
JON R. TAKASUGI
GONZALEZ CARLOS ALVARADO
DOES 1 TO 25
8/22/2018: Minute Order
9/10/2018: Minute Order
3/26/2019: Motion for Order
4/15/2019: Minute Order
3/8/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
3/28/2017: ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER AFTER HEARING (SUPERIOR COURT)
at 4:15 PM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Court Order - Held - Motion DeniedRead MoreRead Less
at 1:30 PM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (Motion for an Order Reinstating the Caption Case) - Not Held - Rescheduled by PartyRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Court Order Re: Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for an Order...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Order (By the Court denying motion to reinstate case); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Motion for Order (NOTICE OF AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER REINSTATING THE CAPTIONED CASE); Filed by Jayna Johnson (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 3; (Trial; Order of Dismissal) -Read MoreRead Less
Minute order entered: 2018-09-10 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Minute OrderRead MoreRead Less
at 10:00 AM in Department 3; Final Status Conference (Final Status Conference; Off Calendar) -Read MoreRead Less
Minute order entered: 2018-08-22 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Minute OrderRead MoreRead Less
at 1:30 PM in Department 44; Unknown Event Type - Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER AFTER HEARING (SUPERIOR COURT)Read MoreRead Less
Order on Court Fee Waiver After Hearing (Superior Court); Filed by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVERRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Jayna Johnson (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)Read MoreRead Less
Request to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Jayna Johnson (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC652906 Hearing Date: November 01, 2019 Dept: 3
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
CARLOS ALVARADO GONZALEZ, ET AL.,
CASE NO: BC652906
[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REINSTATE CASE
November 1, 2019
1. Background Facts
Plaintiff filed this action on 3/08/17. Plaintiff has not, to date, filed proof of service of the summons and complaint. Plaintiff failed to appear at the 8/22/18 FSC and the 9/10/18 trial; on 9/10/18, the Court dismissed the case.
2. Motion to Reinstate Action
The Court was originally scheduled to hear this motion on 4/15/19. Prior to the hearing, the Court issued the following tentative ruling:
Plaintiff moves to reinstate the case. Plaintiff moves pursuant to CCP §473(b), which requires the Court to vacate a dismissal if the dismissal was entered as a result of attorney neglect. However, as Plaintiff correctly notes in the moving papers, §473(b) requires the moving party to file the motion within six months after dismissal is entered. The Court dismissed the case on 9/10/18; six months ran on or about 3/10/19. Plaintiff filed the motion on 3/26/19.
This limit is jurisdictional in the sense that the court has no power to grant relief after this time regardless of whether an “attorney affidavit of fault” is filed or how reasonable the excuse for the delay. Austin v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 918, 928.
Plaintiff, in the notice of motion, also references CCP §472 as a ground for relief. Plaintiff does not brief how §472 gives rise to relief. §472 concerns amendment of pleadings and has no relevance to this action.
The motion is denied. No notice is necessary, as no other party has appeared in the action.
For reasons that are not clear, Plaintiff appears to have changed the hearing date on the motion from 4/15/19 to 11/01/19 after review of the tentative ruling but prior to the hearing. However, the Court called the matter for hearing on 4/15/19 and, because no party appeared, the Court adopted the above tentative ruling as the final order of the Court.
To the extent the Court acted in error, as the hearing on the motion had been continued prior to the hearing, the Court finds no circumstances exist to change its prior ruling, and adopts it at this time. Notably, there has been no additional briefing since the 4/15/19 hearing. The Court notes that a continuance from 4/15/19 to 11/01/19 is an almost seven-month continuance, and the Court’s calendar did not necessitate a continuance of this duration.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at email@example.com 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.