Somadhi v. City of Los Angeles CA2/2

Filed 1/23/26 Somadhi v. City of Los Angeles CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO DEVINDRA SOMADHI, B339445

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. BC647971)

CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lia Martin, Judge. Affirmed. Mansfield Collins for Plaintiff and Appellant. Hydee Feldstein Soto, City Attorney, Denise C. Mills, Chief Deputy City Attorney, Kathleen A. Kenealy and Shaun Dabby Jacobs, Assistant City Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent.

___________________________________________

The trial court dismissed Devindra Somadhi’s action after he and his counsel failed to appear for the second day of jury trial. Six months later, his counsel filed a motion to vacate the dismissal based on excusable neglect, which he scheduled to be heard two years later. The trial court found counsel’s supporting declaration to lack credibility and denied the motion. This was well within the court’s discretion, so we affirm. BACKGROUND In February 2017, appellant filed an action against the City of Los Angeles (City) for wrongful termination. In June 2017, a jury trial was scheduled for December 3, 2018. In March 2018, appellant’s counsel was relieved as counsel, and appellant retained new counsel. In August 2018, the trial court granted the City’s motion for summary adjudication as to part of appellant’s claim. In October 2018, appellant’s second attorney filed a motion to be relieved as counsel, which was granted. Appellant filed an ex parte application to continue the jury trial that was scheduled to begin on December 3, 2018, which the trial court denied. On December 3, 2018, counsel for the City appeared for the jury trial, but appellant handed him a notice of removal to federal court. The trial court stayed the case and scheduled a status conference for March 4, 2019. On March 4, 2019, appellant filed a statement to disqualify the trial court judge for cause. On March 13, 2019, the trial court ordered appellant’s statement stricken because it contained no legal grounds for disqualification. Counsel for the City told the court that the federal court had remanded the matter, but he later filed a declaration to correct himself: The federal court had not remanded the action but had dismissed it because