MATTHEW VIDALES VS CITY OF LOS ANGELS ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****9140    Hearing Date: April 15, 2021    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE: Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept32@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 in-person or remotely.

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Plaintiff Matthew Vidales (“Plaintiff”) moves to set aside the Court’s order of October 30, 2020, in which the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to appear at the trial setting conference. Defendant City of Los Angeles has not filed an opposition to the motion.

ANALYSIS

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), a court may “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.” In addition, a court must vacate a default or dismissal when a motion for relief under Section 473, subdivision (b) is filed timely and accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect “unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 473, subd. (b).) The party must seek such relief “within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 473, subd. (b).)

Plaintiff advances the declaration of his counsel, Sergio J. Puche (“Counsel”). Counsel states that he failed to appear for the trial setting conference because he could not register for Court Connect in time to attend the hearing. (See Declaration of Sergio J. Puche.) The Court therefore concludes that its dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint was the result of Counsel’s mistake.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for relief, and sets aside the October 30, 2020 order of dismissal. The Court also sets a Trial Setting Conference on May 20, 2021 at 8:30 AM in Department 32.

Plaintiff is to give notice of this order to all parties, and file a proof of service of such.