Judge Donald F. Gaffney, Case AP-Aliso Viejo LLC v. Rangel 2022-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: AP-Aliso Viejo LLC v. Rangel, Date: 2022-10-05 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING:

Motion to Set Aside Default

The motion of Defendants Alicia Rangel aka Alicia Olmos, Lorenzo Gutierrez, and Cecilia Gutierrez to set aside default is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) provides: “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.”

“A ‘mistake’ justifying relief may be either a mistake of fact or a mistake of law.” (H.D. Arnaiz, Ltd. v. County of San Joaquin (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1357, 1368.) A mistake of law occurs “ ‘ “when a person knows the facts as they really are but has a mistaken belief as to the legal consequence of those facts.” ’ ” (Powell v. City of Long Beach (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 105, 109.) An honest mistake of law can provide relief under section 473. (Hopkins & Carley v. Gens (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1412.)

On January 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Proof of Service indicating that the Summons and Complaint was served on Alicia Rangel by Substitute Service on “Jane Doe” at 931 Blue Sky Drive, Arlington Texas 76002 on November 4, 2021. (ROA No. 15.) Rangel declares that she found out about the instant action one week before the first hearing. (Rangel Decl. ¶ 2.) Shortly after receiving the documents, Rangel consulted with an attorney regarding the Complaint. (Rangel Decl. ¶ 3.) The attorney informed Rangel that the statute of limitations had run on Plaintiff’s case. (Id.) Rangel understood this to mean that the Complaint would be barred and was unaware that she had to file an answer or take any other action in her defense. (Id.) Due to financial hardship, Rangel could not hire an attorney and did not know that she needed to defend herself. Rangel filed a Request to Postpone Hearing, a Request to Reschedule Hearing, and an Opposition to the Default. (Id.) Rangel was not aware that these documents were insufficient to oppose the entry of default. (Id.)

Rangel’s mistaken belief is a reasonable one under the circumstances. Courts liberally construe the provisions of section 473 to carry out the policy of permitting trial on the merits whenever possible (Maynard v. Brandon (2005) 36 Cal.4th 364, 371-372; Hopkins, 200 Cal.App.4th at 1410) and any doubts in applying section 473 must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief (Maynard, 36 Cal.4th at 372). Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to set aside default judgment pursuant to section 473(b) is granted. If the mistake is excusable and the party seeking relief has been diligent, courts have often granted relief under section 473(b) if no prejudice to the opposing party will ensue. (Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 249, 258.)

Plaintiff did not oppose the motion and has not shown prejudice here.

Rangel shall file and serve the Answer attached as Exhibit G to the motion by October 14, 2022.

On September 28, 2022, Plaintiffs dismissed the Gutierrez Defendants with prejudice. (ROA No. 61.) The motion is denied as moot as to Defendants Lorenzo Gutierrez and Cecilia Gutierrez.

Defendant to give notice.