Antonio Zaranda Salinas v. Juana Velazquez Moreno et al

surprise or neglect in fact caused the dismissal or entry of default. (Benedict v. Danner Press (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 923, 927 (citing CCP Sec.473(b)). Accord, Wagner v. Wagner (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 249, 258.)

The motion cannot be granted under the mandatory relief, because any mistake in the value of the estate would have had to been made by the attorney, and the mistake, despite the sworn declaration of movant's attorney, appears to be on the part of the special administrator, not the attorney. Even if the attorney for the movant did make that mistake, it is arguably past the six-month deadline.

As for discretionary relief, 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." (CCP Sec. 473(b).) This provision of section 473(b) "applies to any judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding," and "does not limit the application of the discretionary relief provision to involuntary judgments or dismissals." Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 249, 254.

"It is clearly established that a motion for relief under section 473 is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and an appellate court will not interfere unless there is a clear showing of an abuse." Burnete v. La Casa Dana Apartments (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1266 (internal citations omitted).

"In order to qualify for [discretionary] relief under section 473, the moving party must act diligently in seeking relief and must submit affidavits or testimony demonstrating a reasonable cause for the default." (Huh v. Wang (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1419 (citing Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 234.)

"In other words, the court's discretion may be exercised only after the party seeking relief has shown that there is a proper ground for relief, and that the party has raised that ground in a procedurally proper manner, within any applicable time limits." (Ibid. [internal citations omitted].)

"It is clearly established that a motion for relief under section 473 is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and an appellate court will not interfere unless there is a clear showing of an abuse." (Burnete v. La Casa Dana Apartments (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1266 [internal citations omitted].)

While the discretion of the trial court is broad enough to grant the motion in this case, the Court should not exercise that discretion due to the fundamental lack of expediency in bringing the motion, and in the parties' failure to move this case forward to trial. This case is now three years old, and does not appear to be any closer to trial than it was when the judicial reference order was issued. Therefore, the motion should be denied.

Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 956 1423 Passcode: 137305

Tentative Ruling: Antonio Zaranda Salinas vs Juana Velazquez Moreno et al Tentative Ruling: Antonio Zaranda Salinas vs Juana Velazquez Moreno et al Case Number

Case Type Unlimited Fraud (16) Hearing Date / Time Wed, 02/04/2026 - 10:30 Nature of Proceedings Motion to Deem Tentative Ruling /media/1995