This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/01/2019 at 06:18:58 (UTC).

SHAHID KAHN VS TANAYUTH NOOCHLAOR

Case Summary

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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0482

  • Filing Date:

    07/28/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

KAHN SHAHID

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 5

NOOCHLAOR TANAYUTH

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

1/11/2019: Minute Order

Unknown

1/28/2019: Unknown

Order - Dismissal

1/28/2019: Order - Dismissal

Minute Order

1/28/2019: Minute Order

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

7/28/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

Unknown

7/28/2017: Unknown

SUMMONS

7/28/2017: SUMMONS

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/28/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Jury Trial) of 01/28/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2019
  • Order - Dismissal; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2019
  • Minute Order ((Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2017
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Shahid Kahn (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC670482    Hearing Date: March 11, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 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