Motion To Reverse The Court'S Dismissal For Failure To Amend And/Or Retain Counsel And To Remove San Francisco Juneteenth As A Plaintiff (Misnomer)
SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC24612757 - November 4, 2025 Hearing date: November 4, 2025 Case number: CGC24612757 Case title: SAN FRANCISCO JUNETEENTH, VS. AFRICAN AMERICAN ART AND CULTURE COMPLEX, INC., ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24612757 | Case Title: | | SAN FRANCISCO JUNETEENTH, VS. AFRICAN AMERICAN ART AND CULTURE COMPLEX, INC., ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-11-04 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Motion To Reverse The Court'S Dismissal For Failure To Amend And/Or Retain Counsel And To Remove San Francisco Juneteenth As A Plaintiff (Misnomer) | Rulings: | | Matter on the Law & Motion/Discovery Calendar for Tuesday, November 4, 2025, line 3, PLAINTIFF TAMIKA CHENIER'S Motion To Reverse The Court'S Dismissal For Failure To Amend And/Or Retain Counsel And To Remove San Francisco Juneteenth As A Plaintiff (Misnomer) (tentative ruling part 1 of 2)
On November 20, 2024, the court sustained defendants' unopposed demurrer to plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. At that time, plaintiff Tamika Chenier was self-represented, and plaintiff San Francisco Juneteenth was not represented by counsel. The court advised plaintiffs that Ms. Chenier, who is not licensed as an attorney, could not represent or appear on behalf of San Francisco Juneteenth.
Based on proof that San Francsico Juneteenth had failed to retain counsel, and Ms. Chenier had not an amended complaint on her own behalf, the court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. On April 15, 2025.
On May 19, 2025, Ms. Chenier filed an ex parte request to vacate the dismissal. The ex parte request was denied without prejudice to filing a noticed motion.
Ms. Chenier filed a noticed motion on September 25, 2025 requesting the following relief: (1) that the court set aside the April 15, 2025 order of dismissal; and (2) that San Francisco Juneteenth be dismissed as a party to the litigation. The motion did not include a declaration explaining the reasons either plaintiff failed to timely comply with the court's order sustaining the demurrer with leave to amend, nor was a proposed amended complaint submitted with the motion.
A party may seek relief from default caused by mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. (Code of Civil Procedure 473(b)). The motion for relief from default must be: (1) filed within six months of the order or judgment; (2) be supported by an affidavit attesting to the mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect which underlies entry of the order or judgment; and (3) be accompanied by a copy of the pleading the party intends to file if relief is granted.
A party must act diligently when seeking discretionary relief from default and must show a reasonable excuse for any delay. (Metropolitan Serv. Corp. v. Casa de Palms, Ltd. (1995) 31 CA 4th 1481, 1487; Kendall v. Barker (1988) 197 CA 3d 619, 625-626). If the motion is not supported by evidence establishing mistake, inadvertence surprise or excusable neglect, the court has no discretion to grant relief. (Iota v. Franklin (1988) 206 CA 3d 521, 528). [END OF TENTATIVE RULING PART 1, SEE PART 2] =(301/CM) | |
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”