Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 24STCV03465, Date: 2025-05-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV03465    Hearing Date: May 7, 2025    Dept: 74

Dekhtyar v. Ratcliff et al.

Defendant Timothy Ratcliff’s Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default

BACKGROUND 

This motion arises from a defamation cause of action.

Plaintiff Michael Dekhtyar (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Timothy A. Ratcliff; Shin Ramen Hollywood, Inc.; and RTM Inc.

On February 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed his proof of service on Timothy A. Ratcliff (Ratcliff) alleging the process service completed substitute service on February 15, 2025 at Taco Star, 1651 ½ N. La Brea Avenue, Hollywood, CA 90028.

On June 6, 2024, Plaintiff entered default against Ratcliff.

Ratcliff now moves to set aside the default.

LEGAL STANDARD

            A Court may set aside the default when service of summons has not resulted in actual notice to a party in time to defend the action.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 473.5(a).)  Notice of the motion shall be served within the earlier of either two years after entry of default, or 180-days after service of written notice of the default has been entered, but Defendant does not indicate when notice of entry of default was served.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 473.5(a).) Additionally, the motion must be accompanied by an affidavit under oath that the party lacked actual notice in time to defend that action, and that the lack of notice was not due to avoidance of service or inexcusable neglect.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 473.5(b).)  Finally, the party shall include a copy of the answer, motion or other pleading proposed to be filed in the action.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 473.5(b).) 

 DISCUSSION

             Ratcliff fails to meet the procedural requirements for a motion to set aside default because the motion does not include an affidavit or a copy of the proposed answer or pleading to be filed.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 473.5(b).) 

CONCLUSION

            The Court denies Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default.