Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/02/2019 at 05:31:39 (UTC).

STEVEN MACIAS VS JOE IVCEVIC ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/27/2017 STEVEN MACIAS filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against JOE IVCEVIC. 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 Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1462

  • Filing Date:

    10/27/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • 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 and Petitioner

MACIAS STEVEN

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 20

IVCEVIC JOE

IVCEVIC ANTE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

KHAKSHOOY BOB B. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

SUMMONS

10/27/2017: SUMMONS

PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE, ETC

10/27/2017: PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE, ETC

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/29/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2017
  • PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE, ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by STEVEN MACIAS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC681462    Hearing Date: February 22, 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

DEPARTMENT

32

HEARING DATE

February 22, 2021

CASE NUMBER

BC681462

MOTION

Motion to Set Aside Dismissal

MOVING PARTY

Plaintiff Steven Macias

OPPOSING PARTY

None

MOTION

Plaintiff Steven Macias (“Plaintiff”) moves to set aside the Court’s order of February 11 11, 2020, in which the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to appear at the order to show cause why the Court should not dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to serve.

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).) “[W]hen relief under section 473 is available, there is a strong public policy in favor of granting relief and allowing the requesting party his or her day in court.” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 981-982, internal quotations omitted.)

Plaintiff advances a declaration from his counsel, Bob Khakshooy (“Counsel”). Counsel states that he failed to appear at the hearing due to a calendaring error. Counsel’s declaration shows that the Court’s dismissal of this matter was the result of Counsel’s inadvertence.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the dismissal of February 11, 2020.

In addition, the Court notes that Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action on October 27, 2017. Plaintiff should have filed proofs of service of the summons on all Defendants by December 26, 2017. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.110(b).) However, Plaintiff has yet to file a proof of service of the summons on any Defendant. Consequently, the Court sets an order to show cause why the action should not be dismissed under Code of Civil Procedure sections 583.210 and 583.250 for failure to serve the summons and complaint within 3 years after the action commenced, or in the alterative, a Trial Setting Conference, for (DATE).__________________________________.

Plaintiff shall give notice of the Court’s orders and file proof of service of such.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer KHAKSHOOY BOB B. ESQ.