This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/13/2019 at 02:42:49 (UTC).

JUSTIN MIRANDA VS ROBERTO GURROLA

Case Summary

On 05/25/2018 a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by JUSTIN MIRANDA against ROBERTO GURROLA 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:

    ****7607

  • Filing Date:

    05/25/2018

  • 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

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MIRANDA JUSTION

Defendants and Respondents

GURROLA ROBERTO

DOES 1-50

 

Court Documents

SUMMONS

5/25/2018: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1 VEHICULAR NEGLIGENCE; 2. NEGLIGENCE PER SE

5/25/2018: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1 VEHICULAR NEGLIGENCE; 2. NEGLIGENCE PER SE

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/25/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Justion Miranda (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/25/2018
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1 VEHICULAR NEGLIGENCE; 2. NEGLIGENCE PER SE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/25/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC707607    Hearing Date: January 16, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion to Set Aside Dismissal

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On May 25, 2018, Plaintiff Justin Miranda (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Roberto Gurrola (“Defendant”) alleging vehicular negligence and negligence per se for an automobile collision that occurred on May 29, 2016.

On November 26, 2019, the Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice because no party appeared for trial or communicated with the Court as to why there were no appearances made at trial.

On December 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the November 26, 2019 dismissal pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b).

PARTYS REQUEST

Plaintiff asks the Court to set aside the November 26, 2019 dismissal on the ground that Plaintiff’s counsel failed to calendar the trial date.

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[n] . . . other proceeding 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 . . . other proceeding was taken. . . .

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

Plaintiff’s counsel declares that the OSC date was not correctly placed on Plaintiff’s counsel’s calendar.  (Panah Decl.)  As such, Plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear and the Court dismissed the action.  

Plaintiff’s counsel mistakenly states she failed to appear at the OSC date.  This is not what occurred here.  Rather, Plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear at trial.  The Court finds Plaintiff’s calendaring mistakes run deeper than merely a failure to appear at trial.  As such, the Court finds this declaration to be sufficient.  Relief is mandatory pursuant to Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration of fault.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

The November 26, 2019 order is VACATED.

An OSC Re: Dismissal for Failure to Serve Complaint and Summons is scheduled for May 11, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 4A at Spring Street Courthouse located at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.