This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/12/2019 at 01:41:35 (UTC).

JOSE LUJANO HERRERA ET AL VS CRESENSIO ALAVARRAN DOMINGUEZ

Case Summary

On 01/29/2018 a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by JOSE LUJANO HERRERA against CRESENSIO ALAVARRAN DOMINGUEZ 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:

    ****2111

  • Filing Date:

    01/29/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

HERRERA JOSE LUJANO

LUJANO CESAR

Respondents and Defendants

SPITIA CRESENSIO ALVARRAN

DOES 1 TO 100

DOMINGUEZ CRESENSIO ALVARRAN

 

Court Documents

SUMMONS

1/29/2018: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. NEGLIGENCE

1/29/2018: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. NEGLIGENCE

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/29/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Jose Lujano Herrera (Plaintiff); Cesar Lujano (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2018
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. NEGLIGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC692111    Hearing Date: February 26, 2020    Dept: 27

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL

On January 29, 2018, plaintiffs Jose Lujano Herrera and Cesar Lujano (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendants Cresensio Alvarran Dominguez aka Cresensio Alvarran Espitia (“Defendant.) Trial was set for July 29, 2019. Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to appear, and the Court dismissed the case without prejudice. Plaintiffs now seek to vacate the dismissal based on 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 motion to set aside the July 29, 2019 dismissal is GRANTED and the action is reinstated. Trial is set for October 21, 2020 in Department 27 and the final status conference is set for October 7, 2020 in Department 27. This case is now more than two years old, and Plaintiffs have not served Defendant with the complaint and summons. Plaintiffs are to serve Defendant immediately. If Plaintiffs do not, they risk a dismissal for failure to prosecute the case.

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.