Corning Credit Union vs. Garcia

(49) Tentative Ruling

Re: Corning Credit Union vs. Garcia Superior Court Case No. 24CECG03656

Hearing Date: May 5, 2026 (Dept. 502)

Motion: Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Dismissal and Reinstate Case

If oral argument is timely requested, it will be entertained on Tuesday, May 5, 2026, at 3:00 p.m. in Department 502.

Tentative Ruling:

To grant and vacate the dismissal entered on September 19, 2025. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)

To set a Case Management Conference for Tuesday, June 9, 2026, 3:00 p.m. in Department 97E.

Explanation:

Plaintiff Corning Credit Union (“Plaintiff”) moves to set aside and vacate the dismissal entered against Plaintiff on September 19, 2025. On April 14, 2026, Plaintiff was ordered to file the Declaration of Nathalia Aguirre identified in their Proof of Service on or before 5:00 p.m., April 17, 2026. Instead, on April 15, 2026, Plaintiff filed the Declaration of Laura D’Anna. Leave was not granted to file any substitute declaration. Leave was granted to file the declaration of Nathalia Aguirre. D’Anna explains that Aguirre is no longer with the firm.

This statement does not explain why the Aguirre Declaration cannot be filed. Lorena Casas attested to as having served the Aguirre Declaration on December 12, 2025. Accordingly, this statement that Aguirre is no longer with the firm has no bearing. The court is troubled by this lack of compliance. However, due to the impaction of the law and motion calendars, the court considers Plaintiff’s motion on its merits based on the new attorney declaration.

Plaintiff seeks relief under the mandatory relief provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), states, in pertinent part:

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 his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, vacate any (1) resulting default entered by the clerk against his or her client, and which will result in entry of a default judgment, or (2) resulting default judgment or dismissal entered against his or her client, unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. 12

“Relief under [the mandatory relief provision] is mandatory if the conditions are fulfilled.” (Metropolitan Service Corp. v. Casa de Palms, Ltd. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1487.) “The purpose of the mandatory relief provision is to relieve the client of the burden caused by the attorney's error, impose a burden on the attorney instead, and avoid additional malpractice litigation.” (Matera v. McLeod (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 44, 63.)

A Trial Readiness Conference was set for September 19, 2025 in Department 502. Plaintiff incorrectly calendared the Trial Readiness Conference for September 19, 2025 in Department 97E. (D’Anna Decl., ¶ 9.) Plaintiff appeared in Department 97E, which is in a different building from Department 502. (Id., ¶ 11.)1 By the time Plaintiff was able to locate the case and contact the court, the case had already been dismissed. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff thereafter timely filed this motion, within six months. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) The motion is in proper form, and is accompanied by the facts stated above, reflecting counsel’s mistake or neglect. Based solely on counsel’s duty of candor to the court, the court finds that the conditions for relief under the mandatory relief provision are met. Accordingly, the motion is granted and the dismissal against Corning Credit is set aside and vacated, and the case is reinstated.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling

Issued By: KCK on 05/04/26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

1 The court again is troubled by these comments. Department 97E does not docket matters set on

Fridays. It is unclear where counsel reported to as a consequence. 13