ADERHOLT vs OMID, et al.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver

23CV010555: ADERHOLT vs OMID, et al. 07/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Set Aside Dismissal Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(b) in Department 8D

and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

Plaintiff Daniel Aderholt’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to set vacate and set aside dismissal of his Complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

This action arises from an alleged motor vehicle collision between Plaintiff and defendant Omar Omid (“Defendant”) that occurred on October 15, 2023. (Yaghoubzadeh Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendant on October 25, 2023, alleging motor vehicle and negligence causes of action. (Compl.)

On May 1, 2025, Plaintiff, under representation by new counsel, filed a separate action against Defendant’s brother Khalid Omar (“Khalid”) (Case No. 25CV010690, hereafter “Khalid action”) based on Plaintiff’s and his new counsel’s mistaken belief that Khalid was driving at the time of the alleged collision. (Yaghoubzadeh Decl. ¶ 4.) On January 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Request for Dismissal of the instant action without prejudice, which was entered the same day. On June 10, 2026, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in the Khalid action, naming both Defendant and Khalid as defendants and clarifying Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the collision, whereas Khalid and Defendant were both on the vehicle’s insurance policy and that Khalid paid the insurance premiums on the vehicle’s insurance policy, among other allegations.

Plaintiff’s FAC alleges three causes of action: (1) negligence (against Defendant); (2) negligent entrustment/permissive use (against Khalid); and (3) agency/vicarious liability (against Khalid).

Plaintiff now moves to set aside and vacate his dismissal of the instant action against Defendant based on Plaintiff’s current counsel’s mistaken belief that Khalid was the driver at the time of the collision. Khalid, a nonparty to the instant action, has filed an opposition. Defendant has not filed an opposition.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) provides, “[t]he court may, upon any terms

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV010555: ADERHOLT vs OMID, et al. 07/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Set Aside Dismissal Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(b) in Department 8D

as may be just, relieve a party . . . ‘from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.”

Further, 473(b) provides: “Notwithstanding any other requirements of this section, the 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 the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, vacate any (1) resulting default entered by the clerk against the attorney’s client, and which will result in entry of a default judgment, or (2) resulting default judgment or dismissal entered against the attorney’s client, unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.”

Discussion

Plaintiff argues that the dismissal should be vacated because the motion is timely and resulted from genuine mistake by Plaintiff and counsel based on insurer communications and overlapping claims. (Yaghoubzadeh Decl. ¶¶ 6-9.) Specifically, Plaintiff argues that he and counsel reasonably believed Defendant and Khalid were the same individual and that Khalid was the driver involved in the alleged collision. ((Yaghoubzadeh Decl. ¶¶ 4, 6.) Upon substitution of counsel, Plaintiff dismissed the instant action and proceeded with the Khalid action based on these understandings. (Yaghoubzadeh Decl. ¶ 7.)

Plaintiff asserts that, as a result of a discovery efforts in the Khalid action, particularly deposition testimony on April 14, 2026 Plaintiff learned that Khalid and Defendant were two separate individuals and that Defendant—not Khalid—was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the collision. (Yaghoubzadeh Decl. ¶ 10.)

In opposition, Khalid argues that the instant action is precluded by the Khalid action because Plaintiff has added Defendant as a defendant to that action in the FAC, wherein Plaintiff alleges a negligence cause of action against Defendant based on the same set of facts alleged in the instant action. Khalid argues that Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (c) prohibits Plaintiff from bringing identical claims against a single defendant in the same court. Khalid also argues that Plaintiff’s and/or his counsel were aware that Defendant was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the collision based on the allegations set forth in the Complaint in the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV010555: ADERHOLT vs OMID, et al. 07/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Set Aside Dismissal Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(b) in Department 8D

instant action and the traffic collision report, which identifies Defendant as the driver during the collision. Khalid also asserts Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel were aware that Khalid was not the driver of the vehicle based on Khalid’s responses to discovery in the Khalid action prior to Plaintiff dismissing the instant action against Defendant.

Based on the arguments before it—by Parties to this case—Plaintiff has met his burden in seeking relief from dismissal pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b). Plaintiff’s counsel attests to dismissing the instant action based on the mistaken belief that Defendant and Khalid were the same person, based on AAA Insurance records identifying Khalid as the insured driver on the vehicle. (Yaghoubzadeh Decl., ¶ 4.) Defendant’s counsel also attests that, prior to January 8, 2026, he was previously unaware of the instant action that was handled by Plaintiff’s prior counsel (id. at ¶ 5) and that he reasonably believed that Defendant and Khalid were the same person and that Khalid was the driver in the accident, until further discovery, including deposition testimony on April 14, 2026, revealed that Khalid was not the driver (id. at ¶¶ 10-11).

The Court finds the foregoing sufficient to demonstrate mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to vacate/set aside dismissal pursuant to section 473, subdivision (b).

The Court also notes that Defendant has failed to file an opposition. which is construed as a concession on the merits of this motion. (See, e.g., D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn.4.) Although Khalid has filed an opposition, he lacks standing to do so because he is not a party to the instant lawsuit. Even if he were a party to this proceeding, he did not file any proof of service of his opposition on Defendant. Further, Khalid’s reliance on Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (c) is misplaced, as that section applies to objections to complaints or cross-complaints made by answer or demurrer, not motions to vacate.

Nothing in this order prevents any party from filing any motion or challenging the pleadings. Further, to the extent there are overlapping or related proceedings, nothing in this order prevents parties in those proceedings from filing the appropriate notices or motions to relate or consolidate the cases.

Disposition

Pursuant to Plaintiff’s request, the dismissal entered on January 13, 2026, is hereby vacated and the action is reinstated.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV010555: ADERHOLT vs OMID, et al. 07/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Set Aside Dismissal Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(b) in Department 8D

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)