Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 24CHCV02096, Date: 2025-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV02096    Hearing Date: April 10, 2025    Dept: F51

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F-51

MOTION TO VACATE/SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Motion Filed: 1/21/25

MOVING PARTIES: Defendants Sasha International, a California corporation; Shervin Shahpar; and Arash Saberi (collectively, “Moving Defendants”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Laura Christine Villavicencio (“Plaintiff”)

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order vacating the default judgment entered against Moving Defendants on 12/2/24.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted. Moving Defendants are relieved from the entry of default against them. Moving Defendants to separately file and serve their proposed demurrer within 10 days. The Court imposes a monetary penalty of $500.00 against Moving Defendants, payable within 45 days.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that on 6/17/22, she contracted with Defendants to install solar panels at Plaintiff’s property, “located at 28164 La Veda Avenue, Canyon Country, California 91387 (“PROPERTY”) for a total price of $52,700.00 with an approximate completion date of July, 17, 2022 (“CONTRACT”).” (Compl. ¶ 29.) “From July through October 2022, DEFENDANTS obtained $52,700.00 without performing any work on PLAINTIFF’s Property.” (Id. at ¶ 42.)

On 6/5/24, Plaintiff filed her complaint against eight named defendants, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Intentional Misrepresentation; (3) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (4) Unjust Enrichment; (5) Conversion; (6) Negligence; (7) Respondeat Superior; (8) Fraud, Fraudulent Misrepresentation/Deceit; (9) Violation of California Contractors’ State License Law; (10) Violation of the California Consumer Legal Act; (11) Violation of California Unfair Competition Law; and (12) Violation of California Product Recall Safety and Protection Act.

On 6/13/24, Plaintiff filed a proof of service stating that the complaint and summons were personally served on moving defendant Saberi on 6/13/24. On 8/19/24, default was entered against Saberi.

On 8/28/24, Plaintiff filed a proof of service stating that the complaint and summons were served on moving defendants Sasha International and Shahpar, via substitute service on 8/27/24. On 10/11/24, default was entered against Sasha International and Shahpar.

On 12/2/24, default judgment was entered against Defendants in the amount of $452,763.19. On 1/21/25, Moving Defendants filed the instant motion. On 3/27/25, Plaintiffs filed their opposition. On 4/3/25, Moving Defendants filed their reply.

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).)

1.      Excusable Neglect

Here, Moving Defendants contend that their failure to file a timely response to Plaintiff’s complaint was based on excusable neglect, namely that Moving Defendants were unable to obtain insurance coverage, had difficulty obtaining funds to secure legal representation, and were otherwise engaged in various personal matters. (Defs.’ Mot. 5:15–6:21.) “In mid-November of 2024, Defendants procured the services of The Green Law Group LLP to represent them in this matter.” (Id. at 6:21–22.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that “Defendants attempt to justify their delay by citing business difficulties, unpaid compensation, a denied insurance claim, and personal matters such as wedding planning and family caregiving. However, none of these reasons constitute valid grounds for excusable neglect under California Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b). Excusable neglect requires circumstances that would have prevented a reasonably prudent person from responding, not foreseeable life events or voluntary personal choices.” (Pl.’s Opp. 7:13–17.)

In reply, Moving Defendants argue that “Plaintiff should be required to prove her case against Defendants SASHA, SHAHPAR and SABERI on the merits of the case, not through mere procedural grounds. The law strongly favors the granting of relief to allow a party to have their day in court and to resolve the case on the merits.” (Defs.’ Reply 5:17–19.) “Defendants are requesting an opportunity to defend themselves against the actions alleged against them that are in fact attributable to another party.” (Id. at 5:22–24.)

The Court agrees with Moving Defendants that “because the law strongly favors trial and disposition on the merits, any doubts in applying section 473 must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default.” (Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 233.) The Court therefore finds that, based on the totality of circumstances, Moving Defendants’ failure to file a timely response to Plaintiff’s complaint was based on excusable neglect. Furthermore, the Court agrees with Moving Defendants that granting the requested relief and moving forward on the merits of the action would not unduly prejudice Plaintiff.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Moving Defendants are entitled to relief from the default judgment entered against them on 12/2/24. Accordingly, the motion is granted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b).

2.      Penalties

“Whenever the court grants relief from a default, default judgment, or dismissal based on any of the provisions of this section, the court may do any of the following: (A) Impose a penalty of no greater than one thousand dollars ($1,000) upon an offending attorney or party; (B) Direct that an offending attorney pay an amount no greater than one thousand dollars ($1,000) to the State Bar Client Security Fund; (C) Grant other relief as is appropriate.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 473, subd. (c)(1).)

Here, Plaintiffs argue that “should the Court choose to grant Defendants’ Motion, Plaintiff respectfully requests that such relief be conditioned upon a monetary penalty in the amount of $1,000.00, imposed pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 473(c)(1)(A).” (Pl.’s Opp. 10:3–5.) In reply, Moving Defendants argue that “their actions do not rise to the level of requiring any such penalty. The only reason why Defendants had to engage in this motion practice is because Plaintiff refused to stipulate to set aside the default.” (Defs.’ Reply 5:28–6:2.)

In granting the instant motion, the Court finds it reasonable to impose a monetary penalty of $500.00 against Moving Defendants.

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted. Moving Defendants are relieved from the entry of default against them. Moving Defendants to separately file and serve their proposed demurrer within 10 days. The Court imposes a monetary penalty of $500.00 against Moving Defendants, payable within 45 days.