Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 23LBUD02282, Date: 2024-04-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23LBUD02282    Hearing Date: April 15, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

A. Pleadings, Judgment, and Writ of Possession

On September 19, 2023, Plaintiff Union Mutualista de San Jose (Union Mutualista) initiated this unlawful detainer (UD) action against Union Mutualista’s commercial tenants for 1034 Cristobal Avenue, Wilmington, CA 90744 (the Premises), Defendants Rafael Davila Madrigal and Alicia Brisila Davila (the Davila Defendants).

On December 11, 2023, Union Mutualista filed a motion for summary adjudication of the second cause of action in the UD complaint, i.e., Termination of Month-to-Month Tenancy against all Defendants.

On December 20, 2023, the Davila Defendants opposed Union Mutualista’s December 11th motion.

On January 4, 2024, the Court granted Union Mutualista’s December 11th motion.

On February 9, 2024, Union Mutualista dismissed (1) Does 1 through 30 and (2) the UD complaint’s first cause of action (the only other claim aside from the Complaint’s second cause of action).

On February 15, 2024, Union Mutualista filed a proposed judgment for this UD action.

On February 20, 2024, the Court signed and entered Union Mutualista’s proposed judgment. That same day, the Clerk gave notice of entry of judgment.

On February 21, 2024, Union Mutualista filed an application for writ of possession of the Premises.

On February 22, 2024, the Clerk issued a writ of possession for the Premises.

B. Motion Before the Court

On March 5, 2024, the Davila Defendants filed a motion to set aside/vacate the February 20, 2024, judgment, and to stay the February 22, 2024, writ of possession.

On March 22, 2024, Union Mutualista filed an opposition to the Davila Defendants’ March 5th motion.

On March 26, 2024, Union Mutualista filed errata papers in relation to its opposition of the Davila Defendants’ March 5th motion.

No reply appears in the record.

The Davila Defendants’ motion is now before the Court.

II. Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment and to Stay Writ of Execution: DENIED.

After review, the Court determines that the Davila Defendants’ motion lacks merit.

The Davila Defendants’ motion—filed in pro per—seeks a Court order setting aside/vacating the February 20, 2024, judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), as based on purported inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (Mot., pp. 3-4; see Lombardi v. Citizens Nat’l Trust & Sav. Bank (1955) 137 Cal.App.2d 206, 208-209 [Self-represented litigants are “restricted to the same rules of evidence and procedure as is required of those qualified to practice law before our courts”]; accord Harding v. Collazo (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 1044, 1056.)

A review of the motion, however, shows that it is instead premised on prejudice and equity, not mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. As stated by the Davila Defendants: “It is imperative to inform this Court that it will take Defendants time to move and find a new location due to the type of business that Defendants own, which is, an Auto Dismantling Business, therefore they request this court to issue an appropriate amount of time in order to move out. [¶] Defendants’ equipment consists in relocation, car parts, heavy machinery, containers, recycling equipment, multi-dismantling machinery, vehicles, trucks, car rims, crushers, etc. [¶] The denial of this motion could result in severe consequences for Defendants business and complicating the retrieval of their business equipment. [¶] Therefore, based on the facts mentioned herein, Defendants hereby request this Court to set aside the Judgment entered on February 21, 2024, and Stay the Writ of Execution issued on February 22, 2024, and grant Defendants additional time to vacate the premises.” (Mot., Davila Defendants’ Decl. at 6:14-24.)

The proposed order also shows that the objective of the motion is to obtain (1) a stay for a period of time to be specified by the Court and (2) a vacatur of the February 22, 2024, writ of possession, all for the purpose of giving the Davila Defendants additional time to move their heavy equipment out of the Premises. (Mot., Proposed Order, pp. 1-2.)

Based on the above, the Court reads the Davila Defendants’ motion as being based on equity—e.g., a temporary restraining order arresting the status quo—rather than on the Davila Defendants’ mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (Austin v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 918, 930 [“‘The nature of a motion is determined by the nature of the relief sought, not by the label attached to it. …. The principle that a trial court may consider a motion regardless of the label placed on it by a party is consistent with the court’s inherent authority to manage and control its docket.’ [Citation.]”].)

However, the Davila Defendants fail to sufficiently elaborate the grounds for an injunction arresting the status quo. While the Davila Defendants have made their prejudice clear, the Davila Defendants have failed to balance the harm that Union Mutualista would suffer through Defendants’ extended stay on the Premises. For example, the Davila Defendants do not explain how Union Mutualista would be compensated for the additional monies it may lose in rental income for the Premises—or for damages arising from Union Mutualista’s breach of any contract for failure to deliver the Premises to a new tenant by a certain date, as applicable. Neither do the Davila Defendants describe attempts to stipulate to a specific moving date with Union Mutualista. (Mot., Davila Defendants’ Decl. at pp. 5-6 [procedural history and prejudice to Davila Defendants alone].) Even if the Court were to consider the prejudice to Defendants,  the motion was filed on March 5, 2024, and by the time this motion will have been heard, they would have had 40 days to move. They present no alternative time period, and only state that it will take time to move and find a new location. Presumably, they have been on notice of the need to be prepared to move for quite some time.

To the extent that the Davila Defendants’ motion is a motion for reconsideration or motion for renewed consideration of the Court’s January 4, 2024, summary adjudication ruling—the ruling from which, alongside the February 9, 2024, dismissals, the February 20, 2024, judgment arose—the Davila Defendants have made an insufficient showing of new facts or law supporting that relief. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subds. (a)-(b).)

The Davila Defendants’ motion is thus DENIED.

III. Conclusion

Defendants Rafael Davila Madrigal and Alicia Brisila Davila’s Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment and Stay Writ of Execution and Request for Court Order to Set a New Hearing Date is DENIED.