Judge: Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case: 23STCV00910, Date: 2023-09-19 Tentative Ruling



Case Number: 23STCV00910    Hearing Date: September 19, 2023    Dept: 58

Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Department 58


Hearing Date:              September 19, 2023

Case Name:                 Resolution Economics, LLC v. Centinela Car Wash, Inc.  

Case No.:                    23STCV00910

Motion:                       Motion to Vacate Entry of Default

Moving Party:             Defendant Centinela Car Wash, Inc.

Responding Party:      None

Tentative Ruling:      The motion to set aside entry of default is granted.

 

Background

 

            On January 17, 2023, Plaintiff Resolution Economics, LLC (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Centinela Car Wash, Inc. (Defendant Car Wash) and Defendant Hooman Nissani (Defendant Nissani) alleging Defendants had become indebted to Plaintiff in the amount of $146,621.50.

 

            On May 8, 2023, the Court entered default against Defendant Car Wash. 

 

            On July 27, 2023, Defendant Car Wash moved to set aside the entry of default based on attorney fault. No opposition was filed.

 

            The motion to set aside the entry of default is granted.

 

Legal Standard

 

            Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) provides for either discretionary or mandatory relief from certain prior actions or proceedings in the trial court. (Luri¿v. Greenwald¿(2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1124.)¿¿

 

            “ ‘Under the discretionary relief provision, on a showing of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,”¿the court has discretion to allow relief from a “judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against”¿a party or his or her attorney.¿¿Under the mandatory relief provision, on the other hand, upon a showing by attorney declaration of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect,”¿the court shall vacate any “resulting default judgment or dismissal entered.” ’ [Citation.] Applications seeking relief under the mandatory provision of section 473 must be ‘accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.’ The mandatory provision¿further adds that ‘whenever relief¿is granted based on an attorney’s affidavit of fault [the court shall] direct the attorney to pay reasonable compensatory legal fees and costs¿to opposing counsel or parties.’¿”  (Ibid.; Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)¿¿

 

            The party seeking such relief must do so “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); see Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 980 [“because more than six months had elapsed from the entry of default, and hence relief under section 473 was unavailable”].) This time limit is jurisdictional. (Austin v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 918, 928; Rappleyea, supra, 8 Cal.4th at pp. 981–982 [“ ‘Beyond this period there is a strong public policy in favor of  the finality of judgments and only in exceptional circumstances should relief be granted.’ ”].)

 

Discussion

 

             Defendant Car Wash moves to set aside the entry of default based on attorney fault.

 

            The purpose of this mandatory relief provision is to alleviate the hardship on parties who lose their day in court due to an inexcusable failure to act by their attorneys. (Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 249, 257.) More recently, the Court of Appeal has stated the purpose was to relieve the innocent client of the burden of the attorney's fault, to impose the burden on the erring attorney, and to avoid precipitating more litigation in the form of malpractice suits. (SJP Limited Partnership v. City of Los Angeles (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 511, 516.)

 

            Here, as required by the statute, Defendant’s attorney submits his declaration, stating Defendant’s counsel thought he had filed the Answer but inadvertently did not do so. (Cohan Decl., ¶ 2.) No analysis of the reasonableness of the mistake or neglect is required under the mandatory provision. (See Martin Potts & Associates, Inc. v. Corsair, LLC (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 432, 438 [“[T]he mandatory relief provision is broader in scope insofar as it is available for inexcusable neglect . . ..”].)

 

            Thus, the motion to set aside the entry of default is granted based on the attorney affidavit of neglect.

           

Conclusion

 

            Accordingly, the Motion to Vacate the Entry of Default is granted.