Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: "Sons of Rojas Trucking, LLC v. United Specialty Insurance Company", Date: 2022-11-02 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING:

Motion to Set Aside Default

Defendant United Specialty Insurance Company seeks an order setting aside the default entered against it on July 20, 2022 (ROA #31).  For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED.

“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.”  (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 473(b).)  “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.”  (Id.) 

When the court grants relief from default, default judgment, or dismissal pursuant to the provisions of section 473, the court may impose a penalty of no more than $1,000 upon the offending attorney or party, direct the offending attorney or party to pay no more than $1,000 to the State Bar Client Security Fund, or order any other relief that is appropriate.  (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 473(c)(1)(A)-(C).)  

Section 473 “is remedial in its nature and is to be liberally constructed.”  (Reed v. Williamson (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 244, 248.)  The statute’s purpose “is to promote the determination of actions on their merits.”  (Even Zohar Const. & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 830, 839.)  “Even in a case where the showing under [CCP § 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.”  (Reed 185 Cal.App.2d at 249.)  The burden on the moving party is to (1) show a satisfactory excuse for the default; and (2) show diligence in making the motion after the discovery of the default.  (Hopkins & Carley v. Gens (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1410.)  Whether the moving party meets such burden is a question entrusted to the discretion of the trial court.  (Id.)  “[N]eglect is excusable if a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances might have made the same error.”  (Austin v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 918, 929.) 

The court finds that under this standard, Defendant has offered sufficient evidence to establish mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.  The declarations of Defendant’s agents, Cinnamon Moore [ROA # 47] and Cheryl Monroy [ROA #49] adequately detail the reasons for Defendant’s failure to timey file an answer—i.e., inadvertence in calendaring which lead to the failure to retain defense counsel in a timely fashion. Defendant has properly included a copy of the proposed answer to the motion [See Ex. A.]  Defendant was served on June 16, 2022, such that the time to respond was July 18, 2022.  Defendant filed this motion on August 11, 2022—less than one month from the deadline to respond.  The court finds that Defendant has, therefore, acted diligently in making this motion.  Further, given the early stage of litigation and the liberal policy of allowing claims to be decided on the merits, the court finds no prejudice to Plaintiff in setting aside default.  The motion is, therefore, GRANTED.  Defendant is ordered to pay Plaintiff $1,000.

Defendant is ordered to file the proposed answer attached as Exhibit “A” to the Declaration of Todd A. Picker no later than 11/9/22.

Defendant to give notice.