Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 24PSCV01376, Date: 2024-10-29 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

Case Number: 24PSCV01376    Hearing Date: October 29, 2024    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

MOTION TO VACATE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND REINSTATE CASE is TBD; the court requests the filing of a notice of related case.  

Background

­­This case arises from certain car repairs. Plaintiff Gentle Carmen Auto alleges the following against Euro M Tech Transmissions, Inc. and Surong Jiang: In 2021, Plaintiff contacted Jiang for repairs to two vehicles. After receiving the vehicles, Plaintiff discovered both vehicles were damaged, damage which included stolen vehicle parts.

On April 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants for:

1.     Theft (v. Jiang)

2.     Negligence (v. all Defendants)

On July 24, 2024, default was entered against Defendants.

On August 7, 2024, Defendants (filed by Counsel Petale) filed a ‘General Denial.’

On October 4, 2024, Defendants filed the instant motion.

On October 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition.

To date, as of Monday, 10/28, no reply has been received (due 5 courts before the hearing).

Discussion

Defendants seek to set aside the default on the grounds of “excusable neglect” in that “defendants were pre-occupied with their subject business” and that they had “a difficult time locating an attorney who would be willing to work at an affordable rate.” (Motion p. 3.)

The court need not adjudicate the issue of whether the foregoing amounts to excusable neglect because there appears to be a related case. Pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 3.300 [Related Case], “[w]henever a party in a civil action knows or learns that the action or proceeding is related to another action or proceeding pending, dismissed, or disposed of by judgment in any state or federal court in California, the party must serve and file a Notice of Related Case.” (CRC Rule 3.300, subd. (a), emphasis added.)

Here, a review of the 22PSCV01039 case (West Covina Courthouse/Dept 6) indicates the involvement of identical parties and identical vehicles. Accordingly, a notice of related case must be filed; however, neither party has done so.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motion is TBD.[1]