This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/13/2019 at 05:23:09 (UTC).

STEPHANIE ROSALES VS CHAWAPOT THOONGSUWAN

Case Summary

On 08/17/2017 STEPHANIE ROSALES filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against CHAWAPOT THOONGSUWAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2633

  • Filing Date:

    08/17/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

ROSALES STEPHANIE

Defendant

THOONGSUWAN CHAWAPOT

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

LAW OFFICE OF SERGEI N. GLADKOV

GLADKOV SERGEI ESQ.

 

Court Documents

SUMMONS

8/17/2017: SUMMONS

Unknown

8/17/2017: Unknown

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

8/17/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

Minute Order

2/19/2019: Minute Order

Proof of Personal Service

2/13/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

2/13/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Minute Order

1/31/2019: Minute Order

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/19/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/19/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Non-Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Stephanie Rosales (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Stephanie Rosales (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/31/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/31/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/17/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/17/2017
  • DocketORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/17/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Stephanie Rosales (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/17/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****2633 Hearing Date: June 28, 2022 Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

STEPHANIE ROSALES,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

CHAWAPOT THOONGSUWAN,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: ****2633

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

June 28, 2022

  1. INTRODUCTION

    On August 17, 2017, plaintiff Stephanie Rosales (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Chawapot Thoongsuwan (“Defendant”) alleging motor vehicle negligence. On February 13, 2019, default was entered against Defendant. On December 2, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons. Plaintiff failed to appear at a trial setting conference scheduled for February 25, 2021. After Plaintiff failed to appear at an OSC re: entry of default judgment on June 11, 2021, the Court dismissed the action for failure to prosecute. On April 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the dismissal citing attorney fault. The Court denied the motion on May 19, 2022, as untimely because it was filed more than six months after the dismissal.

    On June 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for reconsideration.

  2. LEGAL STANDARD

    After a judge or court has made an order, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008: (1) any party affected by the order may make a motion to reconsider within 10 days after service on the party of written notice of entry of the order; and (2) the moving party may make a subsequent application for the same order at any time.

    Both motions must state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. (Code Civ. Proc., 1008, subds. (a), (b). A motion to reconsider must be made to the same judge or court that made the order. (Code Civ. Proc., 1008, subd. (a).

    “[T]he party seeking reconsideration must provide not only new evidence but also a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce that evidence at an earlier time.” (Glade v. Glade (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1457.) The legislative intent was to restrict motions for reconsideration to circumstances where a party offers the court some fact or circumstance not previously considered and some valid reason for not offering it earlier. (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.)

  3. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff argues that the Court improperly denied the motion to set aside dismissal because Emergency Rule 9 tolled the statutory six-month window provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b). The Court rejects this argument. First, Plaintiff offers no explanation for why this argument is “new or different” and could not have been presented before. Second, this argument is legally without merit. Emergency Rule 9 tolled the statutes of limitations relating to civil actions. There is nothing in the text indicating that the tolling provided in Emergency Rule 9 applied to any other statute such as section 473(b). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

  1. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.



Case Number: ****2633 Hearing Date: May 19, 2022 Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

STEPHANIE ROSALES,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

CHAWAPOT THOONGSUWAN,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: ****2633

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

May 19, 2022

On August 17, 2017, plaintiff Stephanie Rosales (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Chawapot Thoongsuwan (“Defendant”) alleging motor vehicle negligence. On February 13, 2019, default was entered against Defendant. On December 2, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons. Plaintiff failed to appear at a trial setting conference scheduled for February 25, 2021. After Plaintiff failed to appear at an OSC re: entry of default judgment on June 11, 2021, the Court dismissed the action for failure to prosecute.

On April 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed this motion to set aside the dismissal citing attorney fault.

“The court may, upon any terms as may be just, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., 473, subd. (b).) Application for this relief shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken. (Ibid.) “[T]he 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.” (Ibid.)

This motion to set aside dismissal was not filed within six months of dismissal and relief under section 473(b) is not available. The motion is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.



Case Number: ****2633    Hearing Date: December 02, 2019    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND SET ASIDE DEFAULT

On August 17, 2017, plaintiff Stephanie Rosales (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Chawapot Thoongsuwan (“Defendant”) alleging motor vehicle negligence. On February 13, 2019, default was entered against Defendant. Defendant seeks to quash the service of summons and set aside the default on grounds that he was not personally served with the complaint or summons. Plaintiff did not oppose.

Filing a proof of service by a registered process server creates a rebuttable presumption that service was proper. (American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 390; Evid. Code, ; 647 [“The return of a process server registered pursuant to . . . the Business and Professions Code upon process or notice establishes a presumption, affecting the burden of producing evidence, of the facts stated in the return”].) Proof of service of summons may be impeached by evidence that contradicts it. (City of Los Angeles v. Morgan (1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 726, 731.) When a defendant moves to quash service of summons, the plaintiff has “the burden of proving the facts that did give the court jurisdiction, that is the facts requisite to an effective service.” (Coulston v. Cooper (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 866, 868.)

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d), the court may “set aside any void judgment or order.” Under section 473.5, subdivision (a), where a service of summons has not resulted in actual notice to a party in time to defend the action, the party may move the court to set aside default and default judgment. The motion must be made no later than two years after entry of default or 180 days after service of a written notice that default or default judgment has been entered. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 473.5, subd. (a).)

Defendant submits his declaration stating he was not served on December 17, 2017, and no longer resided at 940 N. Walnut Avenue, San Dimas, California. On that day, he was at morning services at the Wat Thai of Los Angeles Buddhist Temple in North Hollywood. He states that he attended services to pay homage for Buddha for his birthday and stayed after services to prepare lunch for the monks. Defendant further states that his first notice of the lawsuit was when an attorney for his insurance company asked if he had been served and if he received any legal paperwork in regard to this lawsuit.

The Court finds that Defendant has rebutted the presumption that service was proper and that Defendant lacked actual notice of the complaint and summons. Defendant’s unopposed motion to quash service of summons and set aside the default is GRANTED.

The OSC re dismissal for failure to obtain a default judgment is discharged. Trial is set for July 31, 2020. The Final Status Conference is set for July 17, 2020.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.