Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 24STCV15784, Date: 2025-03-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV15784    Hearing Date: March 17, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On June 24, 2024, Plaintiff SoCal Investment Company LLC filed this action against Defendant Laura Kowalski for breach of contract.

            After Defendant failed to answer the complaint, default judgment was entered on August 22, 2024.

            On December 30, 2024, Defendant filed the instant motion to set aside the default. Plaintiff filed its opposition on February 20, 2025. Defendant filed her reply on March 10, 2025.

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.) “[C]ourts have often granted relief pursuant to the discretionary relief provision of section 473 if no prejudice to the opposing party will ensue.” (Comunidad en Accion v. Los Angeles City Council (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1132-1133.)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff has a separate unlawful detainer action pending against Defendant, which appears to have been served at the same time as this action. (See Sinai Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5.) Defendant acknowledges receiving the unlawful detainer complaint on June 26, 2024 but denies receiving the complaint for this action. (Kowalski Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.) Defendant acknowledges that she “did not realize that the documents served upon me constituted two separate lawsuits,” blaming health complications for impeding her ability to understand the legal documents served on her. (Id., ¶¶ 3-4.) This constitutes the “slight evidence” necessary for justifying relief. (See Caldwell, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at p. 1524.)  

            Plaintiff argues that Defendant unreasonably delayed in seeking relief because defense counsel acknowledged the default back in August 2024 but did not file this motion until December 2024. (See Sinai Decl. ¶ 7; Huh v. Wang (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1420 [lack of diligence, including unexplained delay, may warrant denial of relief even if motion is made within the six-month deadline].) However, defense counsel avers that his wife suffered a medical issue in September 2024, and he had to reduce his workload from September to December 2024 as a result. (Teshale Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.) Defense counsel also fell behind on certain matters due to this. (Id., ¶ 6.) However, defense counsel made sure to file this motion before the six-month hard deadline. (Ibid.) Based on these circumstances, the Court finds that Defendant exercised reasonable diligence in filing this motion. Therefore, relief is warranted.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motion to set aside dismissal is GRANTED.

The parties are directed to file a notice of related case regarding the unlawful detainer action 24SMCV03048.