This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/17/2019 at 21:37:55 (UTC).

YAZMIN RIJOS VS COLCOA FILM FESTIVAL ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/27/2017 YAZMIN RIJOS filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against COLCOA FILM FESTIVAL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9388

  • Filing Date:

    04/27/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Appellant

RIJOS YAZMIN

Defendants and Respondents

COLCOA FILM FESTIVAL

DOES 1 TO 99

DIRECTORS GUILD OF AMERICA

CITY OF ANGELS

CITY OF LIGHTS FILM FESTIVAL

FESTIVAL COLCOA FILM

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

10/11/2018: Minute Order

Order - Dismissal

10/29/2018: Order - Dismissal

Minute Order

10/29/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

12/28/2018: Unknown

Unknown

1/3/2019: Unknown

Unknown

1/31/2019: Unknown

Unknown

2/20/2019: Unknown

Unknown

3/22/2019: Unknown

Unknown

3/22/2019: Unknown

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

4/26/2019: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal

4/26/2019: Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal

Unknown

5/23/2019: Unknown

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

4/27/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

Unknown

4/27/2017: Unknown

SUMMONS

4/27/2017: SUMMONS

3 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/13/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal (CCP 473) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • Appeal - Remittitur - Appeal Dismissed (B294812); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal (CCP 473) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal; Filed by Yazmin Rijos (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2019
  • Appellate Order Dismissing Appeal (Order dismissing appeal filed 12/28/18); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2019
  • Clerk's Notice of Non-Compliance of Default on Appeal; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2019
  • Appellate Order Extension of Time (Order of extension for appeal filed 12/28/18); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2019
  • Notice of Default (NOA 12/28/18); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2019
  • Appeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
1 More Docket Entries
  • 10/29/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2018
  • Minute Order ((Non-Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2018
  • Order - Dismissal; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2018
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-10-11 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2018
  • Minute Order ((Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Yazmin Rijos (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2017
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC659388    Hearing Date: February 28, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

YAZMIN RIJOS,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

COLCOA FILM FESTIVAL, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC659388

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

February 28, 2020

1. Background Facts

Plaintiff, Yazmin Rijos filed this action against Defendants, COLCOA Film Festival, et al. for damages arising out of a slip and fall.  The accident occurred on 4/27/15.  Plaintiff filed her complaint 4/27/17.  Plaintiff has not, to date, filed proof of service of the summons and complaint on any defendant in the action.  The case was scheduled for an FSC on 10/11/18 and trial on 10/29/18.  Plaintiff did not appear at the FSC or the trial, and on 10/29/18, the Court dismissed the case. 

2. 12/19/19 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside Dismissal

On 4/26/19, Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the dismissal.  Plaintiff argued the dismissal should be set aside because she did not know the case had been transferred to Spring Street, she has been ill since she filed the complaint, she has been unable to ascertain the address of “some of” the defendants, and she is in pro per.

The Court issued the following tentative ruling, which it ultimately adopted as its final ruling, in connection with the motion:

a. Discretionary Relief

Because Plaintiff is in pro per, the discretionary, as opposed to mandatory, provision of §473(b) applies.  The Court has discretion to vacate the dismissal under the discretionary provisions of Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §473. The motion must be made within “a reasonable time,” not exceeding six months. Here, Plaintiff waited until the penultimate moment prior to expiration of the six month period to file this motion without explanation.

A showing of diligence is required when seeking discretionary relief. According to Pacific Grove v. Hamilton (1950) 100 Cal. App. 2d 508, 511, an unexplained delay of five and one-half months to file the motion to vacate was deemed fatal to the application. Plaintiff does not explain why she waited almost six months to file this motion.   

Of note, even an unexplained delay of 85 days in making the motion has been deemed unreasonable.  “This evidence amply supports the implied finding of the trial court that appellant failed to show that the default was taken against him through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, within the meaning of those terms as used in the applicable statute, section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Moreover, he offered no explanation of his delay of five and one-half months, after entry of default, in filing his notice of motion to vacate. The statute, section 473, requires that the application be made ‘within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months,’ from the date of the judgment or order one seeks to vacate. In Benjamin v. Dalmo Manufacturing Co., supra, 31 Cal.2d 523, an unexplained delay of more than three months, and in Kromm v. Kromm, 84 Cal.App.2d 523 [191 P.2d 115], an unexplained delay of 85 days, after knowledge of entry of default, was deemed fatal to an application for relief from a default under section 473. While the record here is silent as to the date when appellant learned of the entry of his default, it was incumbent upon him, in seeking relief, to explain this time lag, if any explanation he had. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion upon the part of the trial court in denying appellant's motion to vacate the default decree.” Pacific Grove v. Hamilton (1950) 100 Cal. App. 2d 508, 511.

In light of the failure, in Plaintiff’s declaration, to discuss what was being done between the time Plaintiff received notice of the dismissal and the time Plaintiff filed the instant motion, the motion is denied.  Because no defendant has appeared in the action, no notice of this ruling is necessary.

3. Motion for Reconsideration

At this time, Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the 12/19/19 order.  She argues the Court should reconsider its prior order because the failure to serve Defendants and failure to quickly file the prior motion for relief is due to her ongoing illness. 

The motion is denied primarily for failure to show new or different facts, circumstances, or law that could not have been presented, with reasonable diligence, at the prior hearing.  CCP §1008 requires the Court to reconsider a prior ruling if it finds there are new or different facts, circumstances, or law than those before the Court at the time of the original ruling.  Once the Court determines the existence of new or different facts, circumstances, of law, it can either modify or affirm its prior decision.  Corns v. Miller (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 195, 202.

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, 150.  The burden under § 1008 “is comparable to that of a party seeking a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence: the information must be such that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced it at the trial.”  New York Times Co. v. Sup.Ct. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212-213.  A party seeking reconsideration of a prior order based on “new or different facts, circumstances or law” must provide a satisfactory explanation for failing to present the information at the first hearing; i.e., a showing of reasonable diligence.  Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690.  A motion for reconsideration was properly denied where based on evidence that could have been presented in connection with the original motion.  Morris v. AGFA Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1460. 

In this case, Plaintiff’s ongoing illness is not a fact or circumstance she could not have presented at the prior hearing.

Additionally, even if the Court considers the ongoing illness, the Court finds Plaintiff has not shown the illness is so severe that she could not have located Defendants, served Defendants, appeared at the FSC and/or trial, filed the motion for relief more swiftly, and/or had the hearing on the motion for relief set for hearing more quickly.  All told, this case has been pending for almost three years and arises out of an accident that occurred almost five years ago.  This is patently unreasonable, and the defendants cannot be expected to appear and defend an action arising out of an accident that happened so remotely in time.  Plaintiff declares only that she has “been ill,” but provides no details about her illness, no doctor’s notes, etc., showing a complete incapacity to prosecute this lawsuit for the duration of time at issue. 

Finally, the Court notes that, if it were to grant the motion at this time, the case would be subject to the mandatory dismissal statute on 4/27/20.  Pursuant to CCP §§583.210 and 583.250, dismissal of the action is mandatory where the summons and complaint have not been served within three years after the action was filed.  Thus, any order vacating the dismissal would almost certainly be a nullity, as the Court would be obligated to dismiss the action again due to the running of the mandatory dismissal statute. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@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.

Case Number: BC659388    Hearing Date: December 19, 2019    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

YAZMIN RIJOS,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

COLCOA FILM FESTIVAL, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC659388

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

December 19, 2019

1. Background Facts

Plaintiff, Yazmin Rijos filed this action against Defendants, COLCOA Film Festival, et al. for damages arising out of a slip and fall. The accident occurred on 4/27/15. Plaintiff filed her complaint 4/27/17. Plaintiff has not, to date, filed proof of service of the summons and complaint on any defendant in the action. The case was scheduled for an FSC on 10/11/18 and trial on 10/29/18. Plaintiff did not appear at the FSC or the trial, and on 10/29/18, the Court dismissed the case.

2. Motion to Set Aside Dismissal

On 4/26/19, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to set aside the dismissal. Plaintiff argues the dismissal should be set aside because she did not know the case had been transferred to Spring Street, she has been ill since she filed the complaint, she has been unable to ascertain the address of “some of” the defendants, and she is in pro per.

a. Discretionary Relief

Because Plaintiff is in pro per, the discretionary, as opposed to mandatory, provision of §473(b) applies. The Court has discretion to vacate the dismissal under the discretionary provisions of Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §473. The motion must be made within “a reasonable time,” not exceeding six months. Here, Plaintiff waited until the penultimate moment prior to expiration of the six month period to file this motion without explanation.

A showing of diligence is required when seeking discretionary relief. According to Pacific Grove v. Hamilton (1950) 100 Cal. App. 2d 508, 511, an unexplained delay of five and one-half months to file the motion to vacate was deemed fatal to the application. Plaintiff does not explain why she waited almost six months to file this motion.

Of note, even an unexplained delay of 85 days in making the motion has been deemed unreasonable. “This evidence amply supports the implied finding of the trial court that appellant failed to show that the default was taken against him through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, within the meaning of those terms as used in the applicable statute, section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Moreover, he offered no explanation of his delay of five and one-half months, after entry of default, in filing his notice of motion to vacate. The statute, section 473, requires that the application be made ‘within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months,’ from the date of the judgment or order one seeks to vacate. In Benjamin v. Dalmo Manufacturing Co., supra, 31 Cal.2d 523, an unexplained delay of more than three months, and in Kromm v. Kromm, 84 Cal.App.2d 523 [191 P.2d 115], an unexplained delay of 85 days, after knowledge of entry of default, was deemed fatal to an application for relief from a default under section 473. While the record here is silent as to the date when appellant learned of the entry of his default, it was incumbent upon him, in seeking relief, to explain this time lag, if any explanation he had. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion upon the part of the trial court in denying appellant's motion to vacate the default decree.” Pacific Grove v. Hamilton (1950) 100 Cal. App. 2d 508, 511.

In light of the failure, in Plaintiff’s declaration, to discuss what was being done between the time Plaintiff received notice of the dismissal and the time Plaintiff filed the instant motion, the motion is denied. Because no defendant has appeared in the action, no notice of this ruling is necessary.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept3@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.