Filed 7/9/26 Stith v. 111 W 7 Owner CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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). Ther 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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE
LA’ASIA STITH, B350201
Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct.
v. No. 22STCV38688)
111 W 7 OWNER, LLC,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Richard L. Fruin, Judge. Dismissed.
La’Asia Stith, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Kulik Gottesman Siegel & Ware and David A. Bernardoni,
for Defendant and Respondent.
——————————
Plaintiff and appellant La’Asia Stith appeals the trial
court’s October 3, 2025 order denying her motion under Code of
Civil Procedure, section 473, subdivision (b),1 filed only with
respect to defendant and respondent 111 W 7 Owner, LLC
(Owner). Stith contends the trial court failed to exercise its
equitable discretion. Owner contends Stith’s motion, filed after a
voluntary dismissal pursuant to settlement, was untimely and
unsupported by any evidence of mistake, inadvertence, surprise
or excusable neglect. We dismiss Stith’s appeal as taken from an
unappealable order.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The underlying case started in December 2022, when Stith
and 15 other plaintiffs filed a habitability lawsuit against the
current and former owners of an apartment building located in
Los Angeles, California. Defendant Owner was added to the
lawsuit in April 2023. On December 17, 2024, Stith and Owner
entered into a stipulation for entry of judgment in a separate
unlawful detainer action Owner had filed against Stith. As part
of the stipulation, Stith agreed to and did dismiss all of her
claims against Owner in the current case.2
1 All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil
Procedure unless otherwise stated.
2 On January 17, 2025, judgment was entered in the
separate unlawful detainer action Owner had filed to evict Stith.
However, based on the record, no judgment has been entered
with respect to either party in the case currently before us.
2
On August 1, 2025, Stith filed an ex parte application for
an order setting aside the December dismissal and leave to file a
first amended complaint. On September 9, 2025, the trial court
denied Stith’s ex parte application, but also set a briefing
schedule, stating its intent to consider the ex parte application as
a noticed motion. At a hearing on September 30, 2025, Stith
asked the court to exercise its authority to set aside the dismissal
based on equitable factors, and the court took the matter under
submission.
On October 3, 2025, the court issued a written order
denying Stith’s motion. The court reasoned that Stith had made
no showing, as required under section 473, subdivision (b), that
the dismissal she sought to vacate “was taken ‘through . . . her
mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.’ ” In
addition, Stith had dismissed her claims against Owner as part of
a settlement in which she received $20,000 in relocation expenses
and Owner agreed not to collect past due rent. “If the Court were
to grant Stith’s [motion] to vacate her dismissal, it would nullify
her settlement with the [Owner] because her dismissal was
required by the settlement.” The court concluded that Stith had
not shown any basis to set aside the dismissal “under section
473(b) or on any other legal basis.”
On October 7, 2025, Stith filed a notice of appeal.
3
DISCUSSION
Stith’s brief contains no record citations.3 We have
disregarded factual statements in the parties’ briefs that are not
accompanied by accurate references to the superior court record.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C); Fierro v. Landry’s
Restaurant Inc. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 276, 281, fn. 5 [“appellate
courts may ‘ “disregard any factual contention not supported by a
proper citation to the record” ’ ”]; County of Riverside v. Workers’
Comp. Appeals Bd. (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 119, 124 [courts
“ ‘ignore’ ” factual statements in appellate briefs that do not
contain record references].)
At the outset, we disagree with Stith’s position that the
denial of her motion is appealable under section 904.1,
subdivision (a)(2), as a post-judgment order. (Jackson v. Kaiser
Foundation Hospitals, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 166, 171.) Our
record on appeal does not include a judgment in the underlying
case, and Stith motion followed entry of a dismissal without
prejudice. “A voluntary dismissal by the clerk without
prejudice . . . is clearly not a judgment.” (Gassner v. Stasa (2018)
30 Cal.App.5th 346, 354.) An order denying a motion under
section 473, subdivision (b), when no judgment has been entered
“is not independently appealable.” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994)
8 Cal.4th 975, 981 (Rappleyea).) Because Stith has not
3 Pursuing her motion and on appeal, Stith has represented
herself without an attorney. “[I]n California we have consistently
held self-represented litigants are held to the same standard of
knowledge of law and procedure as an attorney.” (Simms v. Bear
Valley Community Healthcare Dist. (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 391,
406, fn. 5.)
4
established that we have jurisdiction to entertain her appeal, we
dismiss the appeal.
For Stith’s benefit, we also note that even if the trial court’s
order were appealable, her arguments are not well taken. First,
because Stith’s motion was filed more than six months after she
filed her dismissal, she is not entitled to statutory relief. (§ 473,
subd. (b); Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc. (2002) 28
Cal.4th 249, 258 [A party’s motion for relief “must be made
‘within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after
the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.’ ”)
Second, Stith has not cited to any legal authority that equitable
relief is available outside the context of a default or default
judgment. (See, e.g., Rappleyea, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 981;
Mechling v. Asbestos Defendants (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 1241,
1245–1246.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal by plaintiff and appellant La’Asia Stith is
dismissed. Defendant and respondent 111 W 7 Owner, LLC is
awarded its costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
MOOR, J.
WE CONCUR:
HOFFSTADT, P. J. BAKER, J.
5