Case Number: BC675233 Hearing Date: January 25, 2019 Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

MARK A. CUTTING, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALKABBANI MOHANAD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC675233

Hearing Date: January 25, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Plaintiff’s motion to set aside dismissal

Plaintiffs Mark Cutting and Sophia Cutting (collectively “Plaintiffs”) sustained injuries in a motor vehicle collision with Defendant Alkabbani Mohanad. Plaintiff also named Defendants Hadley Towing Company, Inc., and FMG, Inc., dba Hadley Tow in the complaint. Plaintiffs have not yet served any Defendants.

On May 25, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a request for dismissal without prejudice of Plaintiff Mark Cutting’s claim. Plaintiffs now move to vacate the order of dismissal, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b). In his declaration, Plaintiff’s counsel states that his clients had two different civil actions, and he filed the request for dismissal in the wrong case. (Declaration of Matthew L. Bartholomew, at ¶¶ 6-8.) Pursuant to the request, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Mark Cutting’s claim.

On August 8, 2018, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a notice of automatic stay as to all parties, due to the bankruptcy filing by “Hadley Collision Center, Inc.” Plaintiffs’ counsel explains that his office received notice of a hearing date in the bankruptcy case, even though Plaintiffs have not sued an entity known as Hadley Collision Center, Inc. Plaintiffs’ counsel therefore concluded that Hadley Collision Center, Inc. is related to one or more of the Defendants in this case. (See Supplemental Declaration of Matthew J. Bartholomew.)

The Court (Lu, J.) previously held a hearing on this motion. The Court ruled that it could not consider the motion because the automatic stay that a bankruptcy filing triggers prohibits all judicial actions, except ministerial acts. (McCarthy, Johnson & Miller v. North Bay Plumbing, Inc. (9th Cir. 2000) 217 F.3d 1072, 1080.) Ministerial acts are defined narrowly as only those that “entail no deliberation, discretion, or judicial involvement.” (Ibid.) However, the Court continued the hearing on this motion and ordered supplemental briefing and evidence whether any of the defendants in this action are, in fact, related to the entity that declared bankruptcy.

In his supplemental declaration, Plaintiff’s counsel suggests that the entities named in this action are, in fact, related to the entity that declared bankruptcy. (Supplemental Declaration of Matthew Bartholomew, at ¶ 8.) Plaintiffs request a continuance in order to seek an exception from the automatic stay so this Court may rule on the pending motion.

This Court (Goorvitch, J.) concludes that it cannot consider the pending motion while the automatic bankruptcy stay is in effect. Therefore, the Court continues the hearing on this motion to August 12, 2019, at 1:30 p.m. to afford Plaintiffs an opportunity to seek relief from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court continues the hearing on this motion to August 12, 2019, at 1:30 p.m. The Court orders Plaintiffs to provide a status report on the pending bankruptcy on or before August 12, 2019. Plaintiffs shall give notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: January 25, 2018 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court