MANN vs MANN, et al.

23CV013483: MANN vs MANN, et al. 07/28/2025 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 28, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail message (a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; (b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and (c) confirming that they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept28

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

23CV013483: MANN vs MANN, et al. 07/28/2025 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal in Department 54

ID: 16039062174

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

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 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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Maninderjit Kaur Mann’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to set aside dismissal is ruled upon as follows.

This is a quiet title action. Plaintiff alleges Defendants Hardip S. Mann and Harminder K. Mann (collectively, “Defendants”) purchased certain real property in 2000, with each owning a onehalf interest in the property. In 2019, Harminder conveyed her one-half interest to Decedent Ravinder Singh Mann (“Decedent”), who was Plaintiff’s husband. Later in 2019, Decedent conveyed his one-half interest in the property to himself and Hardip as joint owners. Plaintiff alleges that this grant deed did not create a joint tenancy, and thus, when Decedent died, his interest in the property was transferred to Plaintiff pursuant to Decedent’s will.

Plaintiff filed the initial complaint on December 14, 2023 and a first amended complaint on January 29, 2024. On September 17, 2024, the Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer to the first amended complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff was directed to file a second amended complaint by no later than September 30, 2024. However, Plaintiff did not file a second amended complain within that time. On October 7, 2024, Defendant filed a request for dismissal as to the entire action. The Clerk did not enter the dismissal because the request was not signed by

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV013483: MANN vs MANN, et al. 07/28/2025 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal in Department 54

Plaintiff’s attorney. On October 8, 2024, Defendant submitted the exact same request for dismissal. In response, Judge Krueger issued a minute order that stated, “A dismissal after a failure to file an amended complaint by the court-ordered deadline can be sought by ex parte app or by motion, but not by just applying to the Clerk. [¶] See CRC rule 3.1320(h).” (10/08/2024 Minute Order, p. 1.)

On October 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed the second amended complaint. On March 13, 2025, the Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer to the second amended complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff was given until March 24, 2025 to file a third amended complaint. However, Plaintiff once again failed to amend within the time allotted by the Court. On March 25, 2025, Defendants again filed a request for dismissal, signed by Defendants’ counsel, and not by Plaintiff’s counsel. The dismissal was entered by the Clerk as requested on March 25, 2025.

Plaintiff now moves to vacate the dismissal pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b), specifically the mandatory attorney-fault provision of that statute. Plaintiff’s counsel declares that he misread the Court’s ruling on the demurrer to the second amended complaint and believed he had 30 days to file a third amended complaint, since the ruling noted that Defendants would have 30 days to file a responsive pleading to the third amended complaint. Plaintiff’s counsel avers that he made the same mistake with respect to the demurrer to the first amended complaint.

Plaintiff’s counsel declares, “My failure to read the tentative ruling more closely, and my heavy case load, caused my lack of [] close reading of the tentative ruling, which resulted in a Dismissal by Default being entered against Plaintiff.” (Wood Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff’s counsel also submits a proposed third amended complaint to be filed if Plaintiff is granted relief. (See Wood Decl., Exh. A.)

Defendants oppose on various grounds, many of which are not relevant. Defendants contend that there is no causal link between Plaintiff’s counsel apparent calendaring error and misreading of the order sustaining the demurrer and the dismissal. Defendants repeatedly refer to proceedings in a related probate matter, but it is entirely unclear how this is relevant.[1] Defendants also contend that Mr. Wood’s failure to timely file the third amended complaint amounts to intentional misconduct and litigation abuse.

“Section 473(b) includes a mandatory relief or ‘attorney fault’ provision, which requires the court to vacate a default and any resulting default judgment, if a motion or application for relief from the default judgment (1) is filed ‘no more than six months after entry of judgment,’ (2) is ‘in proper form,’ and (3) is accompanied by an attorney’s affidavit of fault, unless the court finds that the default judgment or dismissal was not caused by the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.” (Jimenez v. Chavez (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 50, 57.) “[A] party is entitled to mandatory relief under section 473(b), even when the attorney error is inexcusable, so long as the attorney affidavit of fault shows the error was of the attorney rather than the client.” (Id. at

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV013483: MANN vs MANN, et al. 07/28/2025 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal in Department 54

pp. 57-58.)

The mandatory relief provision applies to dismissals that are the procedural equivalent of default. (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b); Leader v. Health Indus. of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 618.) In Leader, the court upheld the denial of relief where the plaintiff failed to timely file an amended complaint after a demurrer was sustained with leave to amend, because the plaintiff had opposed the defendant’s motion to dismiss under Code of Civil Procedure section 581(f)(2). (Leader, at p. 621.)

However, in a similar factual scenario where the plaintiff failed to amend within the time permitted following the sustaining of a demurrer, but where the dismissal resulted from an order granting the defendant’s unopposed ex parte application, the mandatory relief provision applied. (Younessi v. Woolf (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1137, 1148-1149.) The key distinction between Leader and Younessi was whether the procedural posture “would allow the trial court to evaluate why [the plaintiff] had failed to timely file an amended complaint.” (Id. at p. 1148.)

Here, the dismissal was entered pursuant to a request for dismissal filed by Defendants. Clearly, the Court did not have the opportunity to evaluate why Plaintiff failed to timely file the third amended complaint. Thus, the dismissal is the equivalent of a default, and the mandatory attorney-fault provision applies. Since Plaintiff’s counsel has submitted a declaration establishing that the failure to timely file a third amended complaint (and thus the dismissal) was due to his misreading of the Court’s order sustaining the demurrer, Plaintiff has met the requirements for mandatory relief.

The Court also finds that the dismissal must be set aside under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d), which states: “The court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(d).) “The term ‘clerical error’ covers all errors, mistakes, or omissions which are not the result of the exercise of the judicial function.

If an error, mistake, or omission is the result of inadvertence, but for which a different judgment would have been rendered, the error is clerical and the judgment may be corrected to correspond with what it would have been but for the inadvertence.” (George v. Bekins Van & Storage Co. (1948) 83 Cal.App.2d 478, 480-481.) “A clerical error results when the order or judgment misstates the court’s actual intent (i.e., error in recording the judgment rendered), and judicial error results when the order or judgment entered was intended, even though based on an error of law (i.e., error in rendering the judgment).” (Burch v.

CertainTeed Corp. (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 341, 346.) The authority to correct a clerical error in a judgment nunc pro tunc may be exercised at any time. (Nathanson v. Murphy (1957) 147 Cal.App.2d 462, 470.)

Here, the dismissal was entered pursuant to a request for dismissal filed by Defendants and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV013483: MANN vs MANN, et al. 07/28/2025 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal in Department 54

signed only by Defendants’ counsel. A request for dismissal may be made only by the plaintiff or, where made by another party, with the plaintiff’s written consent. (Code Civ. Proc. § 581(b)(1) and (2).) “No dismissal may be made or entered, or both, under paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (b) except upon the written consent of the attorney for the party or parties applying therefor, or if consent of the attorney is not obtained, upon order of dismissal by the court after notice to the attorney.” (Code Civ.

Proc. § 581(j).) Thus, the request for dismissal filed by Defendants on March 25, 2025 was improper, and the dismissal should not have been entered. This is evident from the previous requests for dismissal Defendants filed in October of 2024, one of which was denied by the Clerk and the other which was rejected and resulted in an order from Judge Krueger informing Defendants that a dismissal could not be obtained in this fashion.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to set aside dismissal is GRANTED. The dismissal entered on March 25, 2025 is VACATED.

Since the dismissal may be vacated under either section 473(d) or the mandatory attorney-fault provision under section 473(b), the Court declines to direct Plaintiff’s counsel to pay reasonable compensatory legal fees and costs to Defendants’ counsel. The Court also observes that Defendants have not submitted any evidence that any legal fees and costs have been incurred due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s mistake.

The Court also construes Plaintiff’s motion as a motion for leave to file the third amended complaint, as such leave is required after the time allowed after a demurrer is sustained with leave to amend has expired. (Leader, supra, 89 Cla.App.4th at pp. 612-613.) Additionally, the Court has discretion to accept an untimely filed amended complaint even without noticed motion. (Harlan v. Department of Transp. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 868, 874.) Thus, Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file the third amended complaint.

Plaintiff may file and serve the third amended complaint by no later than August 4, 2025.

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.)

[1] Relatedly, Defendants’ request for judicial notice of various filings from the probate proceedings is DENIED as

irrelevant.