Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 21CHCV00420, Date: 2024-04-22 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 21CHCV00420    Hearing Date: April 22, 2024    Dept: F51

MOTION TO VACATE/SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Motion Filed: 2/13/24

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Sophia Sharp-Donaldson (“Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Shubin Nadal Realty Investors, LLC, a California limited liability company, as successor-in-interest to G&I VIII Northridge Operating LP, a Delaware limited partnership (“Plaintiff”)

NOTICE: OK 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order vacating the default judgment entered against Defendant and granting Defendant leave to file her proposed cross-complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is denied.

BACKGROUND

This is a contract action in which Plaintiff alleges that on 3/1/18, it entered into a commercial lease agreement with Defendants for certain premises located at 8440 Balboa Blvd., Suite 106, Los Angeles, CA 91325. Plaintiff brings the instant action against Defendants for nonpayment of monthly rent.

On 6/1/21, Plaintiff filed its complaint against defendants Sophia Sharp-Donaldson, DRNK Coffee + Tea LLC, and Tayro LLC, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Lease; and (2) Breach of Guaranty. On 10/12/21, Plaintiff filed its first amended complaint (“FAC”), alleging the same causes of action against Defendants. On 11/10/21, Defendants filed their answer.

On 12/20/22, the Court granted Defendants’ attorney’s motion to be relieved as counsel. On 3/17/23, the Court struck defendant Tayro LLC’s answer and entered default against Tayro LLC. On 7/12/23, Plaintiff and defendant DRNK Coffee + Tea LLC entered into a stipulated settlement.

On 10/2/23, the Court entered a judgement for Plaintiff and against Defendant after a court trial, in the total judgment amount of $255,772.27.

On 2/13/24, Defendant filed the instant motion to set aside the judgment. On 4/8/24, Plaintiff filed its opposition. No reply has been filed to date.

ANALYSIS

“The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 473, subd. (b).)

Here, Defendant “seeks an order to vacate the default judgment and reinstate the case based on unintentional ‘inadvertance and excusable neglect.’” (Def.’s Mot. 3:6–7 [emphasis added].) Defendant argues that she “has been experiencing extreme psychological distress and financial hardship as a result of a divorce now pending in Ventura Superior Court,” and failed to defend herself in the instant action because “when defendant’s attorney withdrew from the matter, defendant did not have counsel to guide her through what became the finality of the matter.” (Def.’s Mot. at 3:8–9, 3:13–14.)

Defendant further asserts that “the debt was caused by another responsible party to whom defendant seeks leave of court to file the attached cross-action. That other responsible party (Eric Donaldson) signed as a guarantor on many of the obligations executed by defendant and other guarantees without defendant’s knowledge or approval.” (Id. at 3:21–24.)

As a preliminary matter, and as Plaintiff observes in opposition, “the judgment entered in this case as to Ms. Sharp-Donaldson is not, in fact, a default judgment … this Court never struck her answer or entered her default and simply held the trial of this matter on October 2, 2023. Plaintiff called its witness and presented its evidence and judgment was entered.” (Pl.’s Opp. 2:5–13 [emphasis added].)

Plaintiff further argues that Defendant cannot claim inadvertence or excusable neglect because she does not contend that she failed to receive notice of the proceedings in the instant action for which she failed to appear. (Id. at 2:25, 6:22–26.) “In fact, the declaration just blames Eric Donaldson, Ms. Sharp-Donaldson’s husband (or ex-husband given the reference to a divorce proceeding), for everything even though Ms. Sharp-Donaldson, not her husband, was the tenant. … The proposed cross-complaint also appears to be against Troy Donaldson, not Eric Donaldson, so it is unclear who is actually the ex-husband here.” (Id. at 6:16–21.)

Plaintiff further represents that “approximately a week before this motion was even filed, Ms. Sharp-Donaldson arranged for the satisfaction of the judgment in this action (and another separate action) through the sale of the house where she was served with the various notices of events in this case. Plaintiff accepted payment of a compromised sum and caused its counsel to provide an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment for this case (and the separate unlawful detainer where Ms. Sharp-Donaldson was also a defendant).” (Id. at 3:3–8; Ex. H to Decl. of David M. Cohen.)

The Court notes that Defendant has failed to file a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to establish that the judgment against her should be vacated based on her inadvertence or excusable neglect. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s motion to set aside the judgment entered against her.

CONCLUSION

The motion is denied.