On 03/12/2018 a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by SOUNARIN KIM against CLAUDIA ANDREA VELASQUEZ in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.
Disposed - Dismissed
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
CHRISTOPHER K. LUI
VELASQUEZ CLAUDIA ANDREA
DOES 1 - 50
9/12/2019: Certificate of Mailing for
9/12/2019: Minute Order
9/12/2019: Order - Dismissal
8/26/2019: Minute Order
3/12/2018: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Jury Trial - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Jury Trial) of 09/12/2019); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Jury Trial)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder - Dismissal; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCERead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Sounarin Kim (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC697734 Hearing Date: October 29, 2019 Dept: 4A
Motion to Set Aside Dismissal Pursuant to C.C.P. §473(b)
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposition was filed.
On March 12, 2018, Plaintiff Sounarin Kim (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Claudia Andrea Velasquez and DOES 1 through 50, asserting a cause of action for negligence. Plaintiff alleged Defendant Claudia Andrea Velasquez negligently operated her vehicle, resulting in a collision. Plaintiff alleged he sustained injuries and damages as result of Defendant Claudia Andrea Velasquez’s negligence.
On September 12, 2019, the court entered an order dismissing the instant action without prejudice.
Plaintiff moves for an order setting aside dismissal of the instant action.
C.C.P. §473(b) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
…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 (1) resulting default entered by the clerk against his or her client, and which will result in entry of a default judgment, or (2) resulting default judgment or dismissal entered against his or her client, unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect…
Under C.C.P. §473(b)’s attorney affidavit provision set forth above, “a party is relieved from the consequences of his or her attorney's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. Relief is available regardless of whether the attorney's neglect is excusable. [Citations] Moreover, if the requirements of this provision are met, then relief is mandatory. [Citations]” (Lorenz v. Commercial Acceptance Insurance Company (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 981, 989.)
Plaintiff Sounarin Kim (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order setting aside dismissal of the instant action, pursuant to C.C.P. §473(b).
On September 12, 2019, the Court dismissed the instant action, pursuant to C.C.P. §581(b)(3), without prejudice.
Relief from dismissal is mandatory under C.C.P. §473(b). Plaintiff filed the instant motion on September 17, 2019, five days after entry of the dismissal. Plaintiff’s motion is accompanied by an attorney affidavit of fault. Plaintiff’s counsel, D. Hess Panah (“Panah”), declared he does not know how the trial in this matter escaped the correct date entry on his calendars, but he has serious doubts as to whether or not the date was ever properly placed in the file and on the calendar. (Declaration of Panah 6:7-9.) Panah declared that, although it is unclear whether the error was a mis-transcription on his part or a mis-communication, there should be no doubt that it was an excusable error. (Declaration of Panah 6:10-11.) Panah declared “no undue prejudice was caused to either party and this matter is ready to proceed to trial.” (Declaration of Panah 6:11-12.)
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the dismissal occurred as a result of attorney fault. Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the dismissal entered on September 12, 2019 is GRANTED.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this Court’s ruling.