Case Number: BC520017??? Hearing Date: August 02, 2016??? Dept: 51
BC520017
Motion to Correct Filing of Costs Bill
On June 30, 2016, defendant 1100 Wilshire Property Owners Association filed the instant unopposed motion to correct filing of costs bill under Code of Civil Procedure section 473.
The Court?s Authority to Grant Relief Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(b)
?? [T]he law favors disposing of cases on their merits, ?any doubts in applying section 473 must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default [citations].?? Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 980. A court?s decision to grant relief under section 473 is ?to be exercised in conformity with the spirit of the law and in a manner to subserve and not to impede or defeat the ends of substantial justice.? People v. North River Ins. Co. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 712, 723. ?A motion seeking such relief lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the trial court?s decision will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion.? Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 233.
?? [T]he court shall, whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney?s sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, vacate any ? resulting ? dismissal entered against his or her client, unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney?s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.? CCP ? 473(b). An attorney?s straightforward admission of fault is required for section 473(b) mandatory relief. Cowan v. Krayzman (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 907, 916 (citing State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 609-610).
?The test of whether neglect was excusable is whether ?a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances? might have made the same error. [Citations].? Luri v. Greenwald (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1128 (internal quotations and citation omitted). However, courts must deny equitable relief ?when the complaining party has contributed to the fraud or mistake giving rise to the judgment ?. [Thus, if the complaining party] was guilty of negligence in permitting the fraud to be practiced or the mistake to occur equity will deny relief.? In re Marriage of Stevenot (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 1051, 1065.
Analysis
Here, defendant?s counsel inadvertently misfiled defendant?s memorandum of costs in a different matter in a different courthouse, having failed to follow up with his office secretary. Petrie Decl. ?? 2-4, 8. The memorandum of costs would have otherwise been timely filed in this matter. No party opposes or demonstrates prejudice. See Reese v. Borghi (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 324, 334 (superseded on other grounds, and affirming trial court?s accepting a late costs bill, finding no prejudice, and explaining, ?the time limitation here does not constitute a matter of jurisdiction; it is directed to the sound discretion of the court.? (internal quotations and citations omitted)).
The motion is GRANTED.
Any party wishing to challenge the costs memorandum shall proceed according to the new filing and service dates.
Defendant to file and serve its costs memorandum within 5 days and give notice.