On 04/26/2018 a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury case was filed by TATYANA SHEVTSOV against CITY OF LOS ANGELES in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
LOS ANGELES CITY OF
RALPHS GROVERY COMPANY
4/26/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
Complaint; Filed by Tatyana Shevsov (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Request to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
Request-Waive Court FeesRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)Read MoreRead Less
Request to Waive Court FeesRead MoreRead Less
ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVERRead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC704053 Hearing Date: February 06, 2020 Dept: 32
city of los angeles, et al.,
Case No.: BC704053
Hearing Date: February 6, 2020
[TENTATIVE] order RE:
plaintiff’s motion to set aside dismissal
Plaintiff Tatyana Shevtsov (“Plaintiff”) moves to set aside the Court’s order of October 28, 2019, in which the Court dismissed this action for failure to appear at trial. Plaintiff moves to set aside the dismissal per Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d), which permits the Court to set aside void judgments. Plaintiff contends the dismissal was void, because the Court dismissed the action per Code of Civil Procedure section 583, subdivision (b)(3), which does not exist. This is a typographical error. The dismissal was per Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (b)(3), which permits the court to dismiss an action for failure to appear at trial. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 581, subd. (b)(3). A judgment that results from judicial error is not void. (See Johnson v. E-Z Ins. Brokerage, Inc. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 86, 99.) Accordingly, this is not a basis to set aside the dismissal under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d).
Plaintiff further argues that the dismissal is void because the trial date was set for October 26, 2018, which is a Saturday, not October 28, 2019, when Plaintiff failed to appear. Plaintiff advances no evidence in support of this argument, which fails as unsupported. Likewise, Plaintiff’s argument that Plaintiff did not have notice of the October 28, 2019 hearing is unsupported.
Plaintiff argues that the Court’s order of October 28, 2019 is void because Judge Laura A. Siegle presided over the October 28, 2019 hearing, when the case was initially before Judge Yolanda Orozco. That is immaterial. “The cause is before the court, not the individual judge of that court . . . .” (People v. Osslo (1958) 50 Cal.2d 75, 104.) Regardless, Judge Orozco was transferred to a different assignment, and Judge Siegle was assigned in her place.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice. If Plaintiff contends the dismissal was the result of her “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect . . . ,” Plaintiff may seek relief under Code of Civil Procedure, section 473, subdivision (b). The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.
DATED: February 6, 2020 ___________________________
Stephen I. Goorvitch
Judge of the Superior Court