Judge: Audra Mori, Case: BC719296, Date: 2022-08-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC719296    Hearing Date: August 12, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange Of The Auto Club (“Plaintiff”), filed this action against Defendants Sinh Ngoc Tran (“Tran”) and Mai Dang (“Dang”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for subrogation damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  On January 11, 2019, Plaintiff obtained Defendants’ defaults, and on May 16, 2022, Plaintiff obtained a default judgment against Defendants. 

Plaintiff now moves to set aside the default and default judgment as to defendant Dang.  Plaintiff asserts that Plaintiff’s counsel recently discovered that counsel mistakenly identified Dang as the registered owner of the vehicle responsible for Plaintiff’s damages, and thus, the default and default judgment entered against Dang were entered due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect.  The motion is unopposed.

CCP § 473(a)(1) provides, “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect.”

            CCP § 473(b) states in pertinent part, “Notwithstanding any other requirements of this section, the court shall, whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney's sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect,” vacate a dismissal. 

The six-month limitation period for mandatory relief commences at the time the default judgment is entered, rather than the earlier date the default is entered.  (Sugasawara v. Newland (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 294, 296-97 [“it makes little sense to vacate a judgment without also vacating an underlying default....”].) 

            “To obtain mandatory relief under section 473, plaintiffs' counsel need not show that his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect was excusable. No reason need be given for the existence of one of these circumstances. Attestation that one of these reasons existed is sufficient to obtain relief...”  (Graham v. Beers (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1656, 1660; accord. Leader v. Health Indus. of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 616 [“The range of attorney conduct for which relief can be granted in the mandatory provision is broader than that in the discretionary provision, and includes inexcusable neglect”.].) 

            In addition, the court has certain inherent powers to enforce the spirit of the Code of Civil Procedure.  (CCP § 187; see Del Riccio v. Superior Court of Cal., in and for Los Angeles County (1952) 115 Cal.App.2d 29, 31 [“In the exercise of equitable jurisdiction the court undoubtedly has broad discretionary powers to take whatever action is necessary in the interests of justice in order that its decrees will not fail to accomplish their purpose.”]; accord. Aldrich v. San Fernando Valley Lumber Co. (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 725, 736-39 [A trial court has an inherent equity power under which, apart from statutory authority, it may grant relied from a default judgment obtained through mistake.].) 

            In this case, the underlying default judgment against Dang was entered on May 16, 2022, and the instant motion was filed on June 7, 2022, which is six months from the date the default judgment was entered against Dang.  Consequently, the motion is timely when judged by standards applicable to § 473.  (Sugasawara, 27 Cal.App.4th at 296-97.) 

Furthermore, Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration establishes that Dang’s default and default judgment were entered as a result of Plaintiff’s counsel’s mistake, inadvertence, or neglect, as Dang was mistakenly identified as the owner of the vehicle that caused Plaintiff’s damages.  It is in the furtherance of justice to set aside the default against Dang so that Dang may be dismissed.

The motion is therefore granted; the default and default judgment entered against Dang in this matter are set aside.  The court will process Plaintiff’s Request for Dismissal as to Dang only, which is attached to the proposed order filed with this motion.   

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 12^th day of August 2022