This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/04/2019 at 00:50:27 (UTC).

LATONYA LYLES ET AL VS JULIE IMATOMI

Case Summary

On 06/19/2017 LATONYA LYLES filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against JULIE IMATOMI. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5551

  • Filing Date:

    06/19/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

HULITT WILLIAM

LYLES LATONYA

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

IMATOMI JULIE

DOES 1 TO 100

Cross Defendant

WEST GEOFF

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

BELTY ANGELA MONIQUE

Defendant, Respondent and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

JEDRZEJEK MATT ESQ.

MARS MICHAEL STANLEY

Cross Defendant Attorney

MARKHAM KEEVIL L.

 

Court Documents

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (JURY TRIAL) OF 12/02/2019

12/2/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (JURY TRIAL) OF 12/02/2019

Order - Dismissal

12/2/2019: Order - Dismissal

Request for Dismissal

10/16/2019: Request for Dismissal

Request for Dismissal

10/23/2019: Request for Dismissal

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

11/20/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED...)

4/19/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED...)

Notice of Ruling - NOTICE OF RULING RE: EX PARTE TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DATES BY STIPULATION

4/19/2019: Notice of Ruling - NOTICE OF RULING RE: EX PARTE TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DATES BY STIPULATION

Answer

2/1/2019: Answer

Cross-Complaint

11/8/2018: Cross-Complaint

Summons - Summons on Cross Complaint

11/8/2018: Summons - Summons on Cross Complaint

Summons - Summons on Cross Complaint

12/28/2018: Summons - Summons on Cross Complaint

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

6/20/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

Other - - Demand for Jury Trial

7/20/2018: Other - - Demand for Jury Trial

Answer -

7/20/2018: Answer -

ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC, AND RELATED DATES

7/25/2018: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC, AND RELATED DATES

CIVIL DEPOSIT -

8/9/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT -

SUMMONS -

6/19/2017: SUMMONS -

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -

6/19/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -

12 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/02/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Jury Trial - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2019
  • DocketOrder - Dismissal; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2019
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Jury Trial) of 12/02/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2019
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Julie Imatomi (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2019
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Julie Imatomi (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
14 More Docket Entries
  • 07/25/2018
  • DocketORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC, AND RELATED DATES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2018
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Julie Imatomi (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2018
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Julie Imatomi (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2018
  • DocketAnswer

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by LaTonya Lyles (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by LaTonya Lyles (Plaintiff); william Hulitt (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC665551    Hearing Date: December 22, 2020    Dept: 31

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

LATONYA LYLES, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

JULIE IMATOMI, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC665551

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL

Dept. 31

8:30 a.m.

December 22, 2020

Plaintiffs, Latonya Lyles and William Hulitt filed this action against Defendant, Julie Imatomi for damages arising out of an automobile accident.  Plaintiffs filed the complaint on 6/19/17.  Defendant filed an answer on 7/20/18 and a cross-complaint against Geoff West on 11/08/18.  West answered the cross-complaint and asserted his own cross-complaint against Imatomi on 12/28/18.  In October of 2019, West and Imatomi each dismissed their cross-complaints, leaving only the main action pending. 

The case was scheduled for an FSC on 11/20/19 and trial on 12/02/19.  No party appeared on either date, and on 12/02/19 the Court dismissed the action.  On 6/02/20, Plaintiff, Hulitt filed this motion to vacate the dismissal based on his counsel’s affidavit of fault.  The court heard this matter on 11/4/20, where Plaintiff requested to continue the matter 12/22/20 because of probate issues.  (Min. Order 11/4/20.)  No party has filed anything additional following the continuance concerning the probate issues, this motion or otherwise.   

The court now rules as follows on Plaintiff’s motion to vacate dismissal:

Hulitt provides evidence that Counsel had agreed to a trial continuance prior to the 12/02/19 trial date, and Hulitt did not believe the trial was going forward on 12/02/19.  Hulitt did not realize, until recently when seeking a new trial date in light of the pandemic, that the action had been dismissed. 

Defendant, Julie Imatomi opposes the motion.  Imatomi asserts that the motion should be denied because it was not made within 6 months of the action being dismissed.  Further, Imatomi asserts that the case has been settled and there is a lack of standing because Hulitt is now deceased.

First, as to Imatomi’s contention that the instant motion is untimely, CCP § 473(b) states in pertinent part,

Notwithstanding any other requirements of this section, the 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 … dismissal entered against his or her client…

(Emphasis added.)

Where a statute establishing a time limitation is susceptible of several possible interpretations a liberal rule of construction is applied, and the “ computation of time should be so made as to protect a right and prevent a forfeiture if this can be done without violating a clear intention or a positive statutory provision. As has been said, when the legislature requires a thing to be done within a certain time and deprives a party of a right for omitting to do it, the most liberal construction ought to be chosen and the furthest time given from which the reckoning is to be made.” [Citations.]

(Davis v. Thayer (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 892, 903.) 

In Davis, the Court determined in construing “six months” as used in CCP § 473, is “the equivalent of half a year and, under section 6803 of the Government Code, is the equivalent of 182 days.”  (Id. at 903.)  In regard to a default entered on 11/3/1978, the Court found the moving party had until 5/4/1979, which was 182 days after the default was entered, to file a timely motion under CCP § 473.  (Id.)  Nevertheless, the Davis Court also implicitly recognized use of a six calendar month calculation in determining the last day to file a motion under CCP § 473.  (Id. at 903-04 (citing Troncale v. Troncale (1960) 179 Cal.App.2d 86, 90 [If the period of six months is computed on the basis of 30 days to a month, the last day of the period would be March 2, 1958, which was Sunday… If the period of six months is computed on the basis of a calendar month, the last day of the period would be March 3, 1958. Under either method of computation, it appears that March 3 was the last day of the period of six months.”].))

In this case the underlying dismissal was entered on 12/02/19, and the instant motion was filed on 6/02/20.  182 days after 12/02/19 is 6/01/20.  However, 6/02/20 is six calendar months from the date of the dismissal.  Consequently, the motion is timely.  (See Davis, 113. Cal.App.3d at 903-04; cf. Gonzales v. County of Los Angeles (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 601, 604 [applying reasoning from Davis and construing six-months to mean “within six calendar months or 182 days, whichever is longer”].) 

Second, however, Imatomi avers that the matter has been settled and that Hulitt has passed away.  The only evidence submitted as to either of these points are emails sent from Imatomi’s counsel to Hulitt’s counsel.  Nonetheless, to date Plaintiff has not filed a reply to the opposition or otherwise objected to this evidence.  Plaintiff seemingly admits these contentions by failing to address them.  Therefore, Hulitt’s counsel fails to establish standing to bring the instant motion in light of the evidence that Hulitt has in fact passed away.

Based on the foregoing, the motion is denied.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@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.  If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

Dated this 22nd day of December, 2020

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC665551    Hearing Date: November 04, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

LATONYA LYLES, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

JULIE IMATOMI, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC665551

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL

Dept. 31

8:30 a.m.

November 4, 2020

Plaintiffs, Latonya Lyles and William Hulitt filed this action against Defendant, Julie Imatomi for damages arising out of an automobile accident. Plaintiffs filed the complaint on 6/19/17. Defendant filed an answer on 7/20/18 and a cross-complaint against Geoff West on 11/08/18. West answered the cross-complaint and asserted his own cross-complaint against Imatomi on 12/28/18. In October of 2019, West and Imatomi each dismissed their cross-complaints, leaving only the main action pending.

The case was scheduled for an FSC on 11/20/19 and trial on 12/02/19. No party appeared on either date, and on 12/02/19 the Court dismissed the action. On 6/02/20, Plaintiff, Hulitt filed this motion to vacate the dismissal based on his counsel’s affidavit of fault. Hulitt provides evidence that Counsel had agreed to a trial continuance prior to the 12/02/19 trial date, and Hulitt did not believe the trial was going forward on 12/02/19. Hulitt did not realize, until recently when seeking a new trial date in light of the pandemic, that the action had been dismissed.

Defendant, Julie Imatomi opposes the motion. Imatomi asserts that the motion should be denied because it was not made within 6 months of the action being dismissed. Further, Imatomi asserts that the case has been settled and there is a lack of standing because Hulitt is now deceased.

First, as to Imatomi’s contention that the instant motion is untimely, CCP § 473(b) states in pertinent part,

Notwithstanding any other requirements of this section, the 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 … dismissal entered against his or her client…

(Emphasis added.)

Where a statute establishing a time limitation is susceptible of several possible interpretations a liberal rule of construction is applied, and the “computation of time should be so made as to protect a right and prevent a forfeiture if this can be done without violating a clear intention or a positive statutory provision. As has been said, when the legislature requires a thing to be done within a certain time and deprives a party of a right for omitting to do it, the most liberal construction ought to be chosen and the furthest time given from which the reckoning is to be made.” [Citations.]

(Davis v. Thayer (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 892, 903.)

In Davis, the Court determined in construing “six months” as used in CCP § 473, is “the equivalent of half a year and, under section 6803 of the Government Code, is the equivalent of 182 days.” (Id. at 903.) In regard to a default entered on 11/3/1978, the Court found the moving party had until 5/4/1979, which was 182 days after the default was entered, to file a timely motion under CCP § 473. (Id.) Nevertheless, the Davis Court also implicitly recognized use of a six calendar month calculation in determining the last day to file a motion under CCP § 473. (Id. at 903-04 (citing Troncale v. Troncale (1960) 179 Cal.App.2d 86, 90 [If the period of six months is computed on the basis of 30 days to a month, the last day of the period would be March 2, 1958, which was Sunday… If the period of six months is computed on the basis of a calendar month, the last day of the period would be March 3, 1958. Under either method of computation, it appears that March 3 was the last day of the period of six months.”].))

In this case the underlying dismissal was entered on 12/02/19, and the instant motion was filed on 6/02/20. 182 days after 12/02/19 is 6/01/20. However, 6/02/20 is six calendar months from the date of the dismissal. Consequently, the motion is timely. (See Davis, 113. Cal.App.3d at 903-04; cf. Gonzales v. County of Los Angeles (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 601, 604 [applying reasoning from Davis and construing six-months to mean “within six calendar months or 182 days, whichever is longer”].)

Second, however, Imatomi avers that the matter has been settled and that Hulitt has passed away. The only evidence submitted as to either of these points are emails sent from Imatomi’s counsel to Hulitt’s counsel. Nonetheless, to date Plaintiff has not filed a reply to the opposition or otherwise objected to this evidence. Plaintiff seemingly admits these contentions by failing to address them. Therefore, Hulitt’s counsel fails to establish standing to bring the instant motion in light of the evidence that Hulitt has in fact passed away.

Based on the foregoing, the motion is denied.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@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. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

Dated this 4th day of November, 2020

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC665551    Hearing Date: July 23, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

LATONYA LYLES, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

JULIE IMATOMI, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC665551

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

July 23, 2020

Plaintiffs, Latonya Lyles and William Hulitt filed this action against Defendant, Julie Imatomi for damages arising out of an automobile accident. Plaintiffs filed the complaint on 6/19/17. Defendant filed an answer on 7/20/18 and a cross-complaint against Geoff West on 11/08/18. West answered the cross-complaint and asserted his own cross-complaint against Imatomi on 12/28/18. In October of 2019, West and Imatomi each dismissed their cross-complaints, leaving only the main action pending.

The case was scheduled for an FSC on 11/20/19 and trial on 12/02/19. No party appeared on either date, and on 12/02/19 the Court dismissed the action. On 6/02/20, Plaintiff, Hulitt filed this motion to vacate the dismissal based on his counsel’s affidavit of fault. Hulitt provides evidence that Counsel had agreed to a trial continuance prior to the 12/02/19 trial date, and Hulitt did not believe the trial was going forward on 12/02/19. Hulitt did not realize, until recently when seeking a new trial date in light of the pandemic, that the action had been dismissed.

Defendant, Julie Imatomi opposes the motion. Imatomi asserts that the motion should be denied because it was not made within 6 months of the action being dismissed. Further, Imatomi asserts that there the case has been settled and there is a lack of standing because Hulitt is now deceased.

Hulitt has not filed a reply as of 7/16/20.

First, as to Imatomi’s contention that the instant motion is untimely, CCP § 473(b) states in pertinent part,

Notwithstanding any other requirements of this section, the 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 … dismissal entered against his or her client…

(Emphasis added.)

The underlying dismissal was entered on 12/02/19, and the instant motion was filed on 6/02/20, which is six months from the date of the dismissal. Consequently, the motion is timely.

Second, although Imatomi avers that the matter has been settled and that Hulitt has passed away, the only evidence submitted as to either of these points are emails seemingly sent from Imatomi’s counsel to Hulitt’s counsel. However, there is no evidence of a signed settlement agreement or that Hulitt has in fact passed away.

The Court finds Counsel’s declaration establishes excusable neglect both in connection with failing to appear at the trial and also in connection with failing to file the motion more quickly. The motion is therefore granted. CCP § 473(b). The action is reinstated. The Court sets a Trial Setting Conference for _______________________________.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@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. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

Dated this 23rd day of July, 2020

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer MARKHAM KEEVIL L. ESQ.