Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2023-00025627-CL-UD-CTL, Date: 2024-03-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 29, 2024

03/01/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-70 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Carolyn Caietti

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Limited  Unlawful Detainer - Commercial Motion Hearing (UD) 37-2023-00025627-CL-UD-CTL FOTI VS IBARRA [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant Ramon Ibarra's Motion to Set Aside Entry of Judgment, to Quash and/or Stay Any Writ of Possession/Execution and for Leave to Defend the Action is GRANTED.

Under C.C.P. section 473(b), a court may relieve a party from a 'judgment, dismissal, order or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.' C.C.P. section 473 is often applied liberally where the party in default moves promptly to seek relief, and the party opposing the motion will not suffer prejudice if relief is granted. In such situations very slight evidence is required to justify a court in setting aside the default. (Fasuyi v. Permatex, Inc.

(2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 681, 695-96 (citations & quotations omitted).) Moreover, 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. (Ibid.) A trial court order denying relief is scrutinized more carefully than an order permitting trial on the merits. (Ibid.) On January 5, 2024, the Court heard Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant did not appear. The Court granted the motion and directed Plaintiff to prepare the judgment. Defendant appeared after the matter was heard. (ROA 59 – Minute Order dated Jan. 5, 2024.) In this motion, Defendant, whose former counsel was recently relieved, maintains he honestly but mistakenly believed the hearing on the motion was at 10:00 a.m. when it was heard on the 9:00 a.m. calendar. (Declaration of Ramon Ibarra, at ¶ 12.) He arrived at the hearing late, constituting excusable neglect, much like an attorney's calendaring error. (See, Comunidad en Accion v. Los Angeles City Council (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1133 [calendaring errors are generally considered excusable, unless the error is not an isolated mistake).) Defendant also submitted an opposition to the summary judgment with this motion. Defendant diligently moved to set aside the judgment. Plaintiff does not mention any prejudice until his conclusion. Notwithstanding all of this, the Court has not yet entered any judgment; only the order granting the summary judgment was made. In light of the policies described above, the motion is GRANTED.

Concluding Orders The Court's order granting the summary judgment and directing Plaintiff to prepare a judgment (ROA 59) is set aside.

Plaintiff's request to quash or stay any writ of possession or execution is not applicable because the record does not reflect any such writ has been issued.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3077486  48 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  FOTI VS IBARRA [IMAGED]  37-2023-00025627-CL-UD-CTL The Court will discuss the setting of a motion for summary judgment and trial with the parties.

If the tentative ruling is confirmed without modification, the minute order will be the Court's final ruling.

Defendant is ordered to serve written notice of the Court's final ruling on all appearing parties by March 5, 2024.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3077486  48