On 11/22/2017 MANIK MANUKYAN filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against SERGEY KRASNOV. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Disposed - Dismissed
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH
DOES 1 TO 10
HG LAW APC
CADENA MEGAN ESQ.
1/2/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1/2/2018: DEMAND FOR JURY
11/22/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Jury Trial) of 05/21/2019); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Order - Dismissal; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Jury Trial)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by SERGEY KRASNOV (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Receipt; Filed by Defendant/RespondentRead MoreRead Less
DEMAND FOR JURYRead MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by SERGEY KRASNOV (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
ANSWER TO COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
CIVIL DEPOSITRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by MANIK MANUKYAN (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC684509 Hearing Date: January 10, 2020 Dept: 5
SERGEY KRASNOV, et al.,
Case No.: BC684509
Hearing Date: January 10, 2020
[TENTATIVE] order RE:
plaintiff’s motion to set aside dismissal
On November 22, 2017, Plaintiff Manik Manukyan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action following a motor vehicle collision against Defendant Sergey Krasnov (“Defendant”). There were no appearances for trial on May 21, 2019, so the Court dismissed the case. Now, Plaintiff moves to set aside the dismissal, which Defendant opposes. The motion is granted.
Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) authorizes the Court to relieve a party from a judgment or dismissal based upon “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b).) Such an application must be made “within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” (Ibid.)
Plaintiff relies on counsel’s declaration, which states that the parties stipulated to a trial continuance, and counsel forwarded the stipulation to her legal assistant for filing and service. (Galadzhyan Decl., ¶¶ 4-9.) However, the legal assistant filed the stipulation in the wrong case. (Id., ¶ 18.) This is sufficient to satisfy the standard.
Defendant argues that the motion was untimely because the order was issued on May 21, 2019, and the motion was filed on November 20, 2019. The Court disagrees. The plain language of the statute affords “six months.” The order was issued on May 21, 2019, and the motion was filed one day before the six month anniversary. When the plain language is clear, the Court need not look beyond that language. Nevertheless, the Court’s review of relevant authorities and the legislative intent supports the Court’s view that this motion is timely. In Gonzales v. County of Los Angeles (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 601, 603 the Second District “six months” to mean six calendar months, or 182 days, whichever is longer. (Gonzales, supra, 199 Cal.App.3d at 603.) Although Gonzales considered the meaning of the term “six months” relating to a government tort claim, it provides guidance in this case. Moreover, the Court is required to interpret statutes in a manner to facilitate cases being decided on the merits. Therefore, the motion is timely.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the Court’s dismissal is granted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b). The Court sets the following dates:
Final Status Conference: September 16, 2020, at 10:00 a.m.
Trial: September 30, 2020, at 8:30 a.m.
The discovery and motions cut-off shall be based on the new trial date. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such before the Court.
DATED: January 10, 2020 ___________________________
Hon. Stephen I. Goorvitch
Judge of the Superior Court