Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 22STCV21852, Date: 2023-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21852    Hearing Date: January 26, 2023    Dept: 52

Defendants 5 Star K-9 Academy, Inc. dba Master Dog Training and Ekaterina Korotun’s Motion to Set Aside Default

Defendants 5 Star K-9 Academy, Inc. dba Master Dog Training and Ekaterina Korotun move to set aside their defaults.  “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.”  (CCP § 473(b).)  “Because the law favors disposing of cases on their merits, ‘any doubts in applying section 473 must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default.’ ”  (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 980.)

Defendants meet their burden of showing the default against them resulted from mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.  The clerk entered their defaults on October 3, 2022.  Defendant 5 Star K-9 Academy filed an answer on October 11, and defendant Korotun filed an answer on October 12.  Because defendants’ defaults had already been entered, the clerk should have rejected the answers.  The court struck defendants’ answers on November 30, 2022. 

Defense counsel Natalia Foley states she mistakenly believed plaintiff’s counsel agreed to extend the time for filing an answer.  (Foley Decl., ¶ 2.)  Defense counsel states she was unaware the defaults were entered, so she filed answers before first seeking relief from default.  (Ibid.) 

Plaintiff Dylan Yeiser-Fodness makes sound arguments in opposition, but defendants still meet their burden under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b).  Even assuming defense counsel’s statements are not entirely accurate, the record shows defendants’ defaults resulted from mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.  Defendants and defense counsel did not strategically choose to allow their defaults to be taken only to file answers shortly after.  They had no reason to do that.  It was a mistake.  The court finds that any neglect was excusable.