Santana v. Perez CA2/8

Filed 3/30/26 Santana v. Perez CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

ARELY SANTANA, B342823

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 21STCV29482) v.

JONATHAN PEREZ,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Anne Hwang, Judge. Appeal dismissed. First Law Group, Eric A. Forstrom and Z. Dean Hakkak for Plaintiff and Appellant. Baker & Hostetler, Phillip J. Eskenazi and Andrew C. Burnquist for Defendant and Respondent. ________________________________

On August 10, 2021, plaintiff Arely Santana filed a complaint alleging she was driving on the 60 freeway when defendant Jonathan Perez crashed into her. She asserted causes of action for negligence and motor vehicle negligence. On January 5, 2024, the parties jointly filed an exhibit list, a set of jury instructions, and a witness list. Plaintiff also filed her own proposed statement of the case. On January 10, 2024, the trial court conducted a final status conference with the trial set for January 24, 2024. On January 16, 2024, the parties jointly filed their amended exhibit list, witness list, jury instructions, and statement of the case. On January 24, 2024, the trial court called the case for trial at 8:30 a.m., and neither party appeared. As a result, the trial court ordered Santana’s complaint dismissed without prejudice under California Code of Civil Procedure1 section 581, subdivision (b)(3). The order was served on the parties the same day. On January 29, 2024, Santana filed a motion for reconsideration seeking relief under section 1008, subdivision (a), and section 473, subdivision (b). In that motion, Santana’s trial counsel filed a declaration attesting that he was in the restroom when the case was called, and explaining that he arrived in the courtroom at 8:45 a.m. However, the trial court’s minute order noted that plaintiff’s counsel arrived in the courtroom at 9:02 a.m. Perez did not file an opposition to the Santana’s motion for reconsideration. On March 18, 2024, the trial court denied the motion for reconsideration. Initially, the trial court ruled that plaintiff failed to show that section 1008 governed because