Judge Daniel S. Murphy, Case 22STCV32660 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV32660, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV32660 Hearing Date: May 17, 2023 Dept: 32

YVONNE LEDESMA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CHE CHENG CHENG, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 22STCV32660

Hearing Date: May 17, 2023

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

defendant diversified property management, inc.’s motion to set aside default

BACKGROUND

On October 3, 2022, Plaintiffs Yvonne Ledesma, Jose Hernandez, Anthony Rodriguez, Jerson Hernandez, and Sonia Hernandez filed this action against Che Cheng Cheng, Huang Min Cheng, and Diversified Property Management, Inc.

Defendant Diversified did not answer the complaint, and default was entered on January 24, 2023. On April 7, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion to set aside the default. Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition.

LEGAL STANDARD

“The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b).) Because the law favors resolution on the merits, doubts are resolved in favor of the party requesting relief, and only “slight evidence” is needed to justify relief. (Caldwell v. Methodist Hospital (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1521, 1524.)

DISCUSSION

Defendant received the summons and complaint on November 15 or 16, 2022 and forwarded them to its insurance broker, ACT Insurance Services, Inc., on November 17, 2022. (Cheung Decl. ¶ 2.) ACT acknowledged receipt and stated that it would file the claim with Defendant’s insurance carrier. (Ibid.) Therefore, Defendant believed that the insurance carrier had arranged for a defense of the action. (Id., ¶ 3.) The insurance carrier in fact did not retain defense counsel, and the default followed.

This evidence demonstrates that the failure to answer the complaint was caused by a mistake or excusable neglect and is sufficient to warrant relief under Section 473(b). By not opposing the motion, Plaintiffs essentially stipulate that the default should be set aside.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Diversified Property Management, Inc.’s motion to set aside default is GRANTED. The default entered against Diversified Property Management, Inc. on January 24, 2023 is vacated.