SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
ARUSYAK GEKCHYAN, Plaintiff(s), vs. BARCELO MAYA BEACH RESORT, et al., Defendant(s).
Case No.: BC672794
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL
Dept. 3
1:30 p.m.
April 18, 2019
Plaintiff, Arusyak Gekchyan filed this action against Defendants, Barcelo Maya Beach Resort and Barcelo Hotels & Resorts for damages arising out of a food poisoning incident. Plaintiff filed the complaint on 8/17/17. Plaintiff has not, to date, filed proof of service of the summons and complaint on Defendants. On 2/19/19, the Court called the case for trial. No party appeared, and the Court dismissed the case.
At this time, Plaintiff moves to set aside the dismissal. Plaintiff’s attorney declares the failure to appear at the trial was due to an error in his office. Specifically, he indicates the file was erroneously placed in the firm’s “inactive” files rather than its active files, such that it was
Hearing Date
April 18, 2019
Type
Other Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
ARUSYAK GEKCHYAN, Plaintiff(s), vs. BARCELO MAYA BEACH RESORT, et al., Defendant(s).
Case No.: BC672794
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL
Dept. 3
1:30 p.m.
April 18, 2019
Plaintiff, Arusyak Gekchyan filed this action against Defendants, Barcelo Maya Beach Resort and Barcelo Hotels & Resorts for damages arising out of a food poisoning incident. Plaintiff filed the complaint on 8/17/17. Plaintiff has not, to date, filed proof of service of the summons and complaint on Defendants. On 2/19/19, the Court called the case for trial. No party appeared, and the Court dismissed the case.
At this time, Plaintiff moves to set aside the dismissal. Plaintiff’s attorney declares the failure to appear at the trial was due to an error in his office. Specifically, he indicates the file was erroneously placed in the firm’s “inactive” files rather than its active files, such that it was