Williams v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept. CA2/8

Filed 7/2/24 Williams v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Dept. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

BRIAND WILLIAMS, B323866

Plaintiff and Appellant, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 21STCV16669 v.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Yolanda Orozco, Judge. Affirmed. Briand Williams, in pro per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendants and Respondents. ____________________ Briand Williams filed suit on April 30, 2021. By all indications, he did not serve any defendant. The trial court held a case management conference on August 31, 2021. No one appeared.

On September 23, 2021, the court heard an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to appear and for failure to prosecute. No one appeared. The court dismissed the case the same day. On August 5, 2022, Williams filed a motion to set aside and to vacate the dismissal pursuant to section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Unspecified code citations are to this code. On September 1, 2022, the court denied Williams’s section 473 motion. The court ruled Williams’s untimely motion violated section 473’s jurisdictional time limit of six months. Williams moved for reconsideration on September 14, 2022. The court denied this motion on October 6, 2022. Motions for reconsideration require a showing of new facts relating to the motion at hand. The court ruled Williams had not offered facts or law that Williams could not have presented at the first hearing. Williams cited Lewis v. Superior Court (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 366 (Lewis), which the trial court stated did not give it discretion to waive or toll section 473’s six-month requirement. Williams filed a notice of appeal on October 6, 2022. The trial court correctly applied the six-month time requirement of section 473. “This six-month time limitation is jurisdictional; the court has no power to grant relief under section 473 once the time has lapsed.” (Austin v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 918, 928.) Williams cites Loeb v. County of San Diego (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 421, 430, which is not on point because it did not involve section 473. In the context of a ruling on a summary judgment motion and a discussion of competing proposed verdict forms, the Loeb court held that a trial court can correct its own