Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: "Security National Insurance Company v. RW Oceans Enterprises, Inc.", Date: 2023-07-12 Tentative Ruling
TENTATIVE RULING:
On May 17, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to set aside the default judgment entered against it on February 17, 2023. Defendant argues that, through excusable neglect, it failed to timely retain counsel and attempted to appear at a case management conference, but went to the wrong courthouse. Plaintiff opposes, arguing that Defendant’s reasons do not constitute excusable neglect. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(b), 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.” “Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken….” (Ibid.)
“[T]he provisions of section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure are to be liberally construed and sound policy favors the determination of actions on their merits.” (Rodriguez v. Super. Ct. (2005) 127 Cal. App. 4th 1027, 1037). “It is well settled that appellate courts have always been and are favorably disposed toward such action upon the part of the trial courts as will permit, rather than prevent, the adjudication of legal controversies upon their merits.” (Id.) “Even in a case where the showing under section 473 is not strong, or where there is any doubt as to the setting aside of a default, such doubt should be resolved in favor of the application.” (Garcia v. Garcia (1951) 105 Cal. App. 2d 289, 291; see also Elston v. City of Turlock, (1985) 38 Cal. 3d 227, 233 [“very slight evidence will be required to justify a court in setting aside the default.])
The court finds that under this standard and given the policy of litigating legal controversies on the merits, Defendant has provided sufficient evidence to justify setting aside the default. Defendant declares that he made attempts to search for an attorney at the end of November/early December 2022. Emails were exchanged between Defendant and an attorney (who was not retained) between December 2022 and March 2023, in which Defendant explained the case multiple times and asked for help. Defendant also attempted to appear at a March 21, 2023, hearing himself, but ended up at the wrong courthouse. Defendant only recently was able to retain counsel in May 2023. These facts are sufficient to establish that the default judgment was entered due to Defendant’s own “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Given the early stages of litigation and that a reasonable amount of time has passed since default judgment was entered and Defendant’s filing of this motion, the court finds that Plaintiff will suffer minimal prejudice.
Further, the court finds that Defendant has also met the procedural requirements to set aside the default judgment against it. Defendant included a proposed copy of the answer, and the motion was made within six months of default judgment being entered.
The motion is, therefore, GRANTED, and Defendant is ordered to file and serve the Answer attached to the Declaration of Yubini Maldonado within 15-days after hearing on this matter.
Moving party to give notice.