Garcia v. LCS Community Employment, LLC

series of procedural failures, and that this action was dismissed after hearing from Plaintiff’s counsel.

In Peltier v. McCloud River R.R. Co. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1809, the trial court dismissed the case for failing to bring it to trial within three years under CCP section 583.410, which gives a court discretion to dismiss an action for delay in prosecution. The plaintiff moved for relief under CCP section 473, asserting that his attorney’s decision not to move the case forward until plaintiff’s condition had stabilized constituted mistake or neglect within the meaning of that provision. (Id., at p. 1812.)

The CCP section 473 motion was made after the plaintiff filed opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss, and after a motion for reconsideration under CCP section 1008. (Id., at p. 1813.) In support of the section 473(b) motion, the plaintiff had provided a statement from his prior attorney who stated: “the decision to proceed at the pace and as plaintiff did [sic] was solely mine.” (Id., at p. 1814.)

In upholding the trial court’s denial of the CCP section 473(b) motion, the appellate court noted that “when the Legislature amended section 473 to include this provision, it left the discretionary dismissal statutes (§ 583.410 et seq.) intact. Under these statutes, the trial court may dismiss an action for failure to serve the complaint within two years or to bring the case to trial within three years (§ 583.420, subd. (a)), exercising its discretion according to the criteria prescribed by the Judicial Council. (§ 583.410, subd. (b); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 373(e).).” (Id. at p. 1816.) The appellate court noted that the vast majority of plaintiffs whose actions are dismissed under section 583.410 are due to attorney neglect such that section 473(b) would nearly nullify the discretionary dismissal statutes. (Ibid.)

Here, this court discussed Plaintiff’s untimely request for a hearing on the tentative ruling published for the OSC calendar. But this court did not consider the merits of Plaintiff’s counsel’s explanation regarding his failure to appear at the CMC hearing. Defendant’s counsel was not present at the OSC hearing and Plaintiff’s counsel could not confirm notice was given to Defendant of Plaintiff’s counsel’s intent to appear at the OSC hearing. In short, the action was dismissed for failing to timely request a hearing on the OSC tentative ruling. This court has not previously considered a formal motion or explanation of Plaintiff’s failure to appear at the August 5, 2025, CMC hearing.

IV. Attorney Fees and Costs

CCP section 473(b) states that when a motion is granted pursuant to an attorney affidavit of fault this court should “direct the attorney to pay reasonable compensatory legal fees and costs to opposing counsel or parties.” Neither party has addressed this issue.

V.

Conclusion

This court finds that the requested relief is mandatory based upon Plaintiff’s former counsel’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. The motion is GRANTED. The dismissal entered on October 28, 2025, is hereby vacated and set aside. This court will sign the proposed order.

4. 25CV01793, Lorenzini v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.

Per the request of submitted party, both the Motion for Protective Order and the Motion to Impose Terminating and Monetary Sanctions have been DROPPED from calendar.

5. 25CV04758, Garcia v. LCS Community Employment, LLC

This matter is on calendar for the motion of Defendant LCS Community Employment LLC (“Defendant”) to sever the claims of Plaintiffs Claudia Garcia and Veronica Elizabeth Cortes Ruiz (“Plaintiffs”) or, in the alternative, to order separate trials. This matter was originally heard on March 25, 2026, and was continued for proof of service showing service of the motion after it was filed or of notice of the hearing. Proof of service was filed on March 27, 2026, along with Defendant’s proof of service of Notice of Entry of Court’s Minute Order. On August 27, 2026, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation RE Severance and Consolidation of Plaintiff Garcia’s Claims and [Proposed] Order wherein the parties stipulate to the severance of the Plaintiffs’ claims. Accordingly, the motion is taken off calendar as MOOT.

6. 25CV05371, Ashby v. California Department of Transportation, a public entity

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 396b and Government Code section 955.2, defendant State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”), moves for an order transferring this action to the County of Sacramento. The complaint filed by Plaintiffs Quinton Wesley Ashby, an individual, and Laura Ashby, a minor by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Quinton Wesley Ashby (“Plaintiffs”), arises out of an automobile accident that occurred on May 11, 2024. Plaintiffs were driving near SR-160 and Sherman Island East Levee Road in an unincorporated area of Sacramento County on a roadway allegedly negligently owned, managed, and/or operated by Caltrans, when a vehicle owned by defendant Emma Leticia Recinos, and driven by defendant John Patrick Malley, collided with Plaintiffs’ vehicle causing them substantial injuries.

Government Code section 955.2 provides: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, where the State is named as a defendant in any action or proceeding for death or injury to person or personal property and the injury or the injury causing death occurred within this State, the proper court for the trial of the action is a court of competent jurisdiction in the county where the injury occurred or where the injury causing death occurred. The court may, on motion, change the place of the trial in the same manner and under the same circumstances as the place of trial may be changed where an action is between private parties.”

As the State of California is a defendant in this action and the injury is alleged to have occurred in Sacramento County, the proper venue for this action is in Sacramento County. The motion is GRANTED. This action shall be transferred to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. The court will sign the proposed order.

7. SCV-269300, Garcia v. RAC Acceptance East, LLC

On August 26, 2026, this court granted the ex parte application of Defendant RAC Acceptance East, LLC (“Defendant”) to advance hearing dates on the applications of Stephanie Quincy and Lindsay Fiore to be admitted pro hac vice. The court set the hearing on the pro hac vice applications on this calendar.

I. Proof of Service

“A person desiring to appear as counsel pro hac vice in a superior court must file with the court a verified application together with proof of service by mail in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a of a copy of the application and of the notice of hearing of the application on all parties who have appeared in the cause and on the State Bar at its San Francisco office. The 8