On 07/28/2017 SHAHID KAHN filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against TANAYUTH NOOCHLAOR. 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.
****0482
07/28/2017
Disposed - Dismissed
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH
KAHN SHAHID
DOES 1 TO 5
NOOCHLAOR TANAYUTH
1/11/2019: Minute Order
1/28/2019: Unknown
1/28/2019: Order - Dismissal
1/28/2019: Minute Order
7/28/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
7/28/2017: Unknown
7/28/2017: SUMMONS
at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by Court
Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Jury Trial) of 01/28/2019); Filed by Clerk
Minute Order ( (Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk
Order - Dismissal; Filed by Clerk
at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court
Minute Order ((Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk
SUMMONS
ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER
Complaint; Filed by Shahid Kahn (Plaintiff)
COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
Case Number: BC670482 Hearing Date: August 31, 2020 Dept: 32
|
shahid kahn, Plaintiff, v.
tanayuth noochlaor, Defendant. |
Case No.: BC670482
Hearing Date: August 31, 2020
[TENTATIVE] order RE: plaintiff’s motion to set aside dismissal |
Plaintiff Shahid Kahn (“Plaintiff”) filed this action as a self-represented party on July 28, 2017, following a motor vehicle collision with Tanayuth Noochlaor (“Defendant”). The summons and complaint were never served on Defendant. Plaintiff did not appear at the final status conference on January 11, 2019. Plaintiff did not appear on the trial date of January 28, 2019. Therefore, the Court dismissed this case pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581(b)(3). On February 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the dismissal pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473.
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.” 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.” (Ibid.) The six-month time limit is jurisdictional. (Rutan v. Summit Sports, Inc. (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 965, 970.) Six months is defined as half a year, or 182 days, for the purposes of this section. (Davis v. Thayer (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 892, 901-04.)
This case was dismissed on January 11, 2019. Plaintiff filed this motion on February 11, 2020, which is one year and 14 days after the date on which the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint. Therefore, the motion is denied as untimely.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the dismissal is denied. Notice is not required, as Defendant was never served.
DATED: August 31, 2020 ___________________________
Stephen I. Goorvitch
Judge of the Superior Court
Case Number: BC670482 Hearing Date: March 11, 2020 Dept: 32
|
shahid kahn, Plaintiff, v.
tanayuth noochlaor, Defendant. |
Case No.: BC670482
Hearing Date: March 11, 2020
[TENTATIVE] order RE: plaintiff’s motion to set aside dismissal |
Plaintiff Shahid Kahn (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on July 28, 2017, and the Court set a final status conference date of January 11, 2019, and a trial date of January 28, 2019. Plaintiff’s counsel did not appear at the final status conference. Nor did Plaintiff’s counsel appear on the trial date. Therefore, the Court dismissed the case pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581(b)(3) based upon Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to appear for trial. Then, on February 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the dismissal.
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.” 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.” (Ibid.)
Plaintiff filed this motion on February 11, 2020, which is one year and 14 days after the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint. The motion is not timely under the statute, and Plaintiff cites no authority giving the Court discretion to grant the motion. Although Plaintiff cites cases establishing that the Court has wide discretion, none addresses whether the Court may grant this motion after the statutory time limit has expired. Therefore, the motion is denied. Notice is not required since Defendant was never served with the summons and complaint.
DATED: March 11, 2020 ___________________________
Stephen I. Goorvitch
Judge of the Superior Court