Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Case: 23SMCV01184, Date: 2024-04-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV01184    Hearing Date: April 30, 2024    Dept: 205

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – West District

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205

BACKGROUND

This is an unlawful detainer action.  Plaintiff Huili Guo (“Landlord”) is the owner of real property located at 1937 S. Beverly Glen Blvd, Apt 20, Los Angeles, California (the “Property”).  Landlord leased the Property to Defendant Shahin Khajavi (“Tenant”).  However, Khajavi does not live on the Property; instead, the Property is occupied by his ex-wife (Nazgol Hemmatian) and his son.  Landlord claims Khajavi has failed to pay rent due on the lease.  

Plaintiff filed a request to enter default judgment which was rejected by the Clerk’s Office on October 24, 2023 due to a lack of signatures.  On the same date, Plaintiff re-submitted the package with signatures and received notification that the packet was accepted and filed with the Court. 

The Court set an OSC for November 20, 2023 as to why the case should not be dismissed for failure to file a default/default judgment package.  That hearing was continued to February 15, 2024.  On February 15, 2024, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice, concluding that Plaintiff had not complied with the prior court order to file a default package.   

This hearing is on Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal.  Plaintiff argues that he submitted the default package on October 24, 2023, and there was therefore no basis for the Court’s dismissal of his Complaint.   

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §473(b), both discretionary and mandatory relief are available to parties when a case is dismissed.  Discretionary relief is available under the statute as “the court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.”  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 473(b).)

Alternatively, mandatory relief is available when “accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.”  (Id.)  The purpose of the attorney affidavit provision is to “relieve the innocent client of the burden of the attorney’s fault, to impose the burden on the erring attorney, and to avoid precipitating more litigation in the form of malpractice suits.”  (Hu v. Fang (2002) 104 Cal.App.4^th 61, 64.)  Mandatory relief is available even if counsel’s neglect was inexcusable.  (SJP Limited Partnership v. City of Los Angeles (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 511, 516–517.) 

An application for discretionary or mandatory relief must be made no more than six months after entry of the judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding from which relief is sought.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b); English v. IKON Business Solutions (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 130, 143.)

“[W]hen relief under section 473 is available, there is a strong public policy in favor of granting relief and allowing the requesting party his or her day in court[.]” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 975, 981-82.)  Any doubt in applying section 473, subdivision (b), must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief.  (Bonzer v. City of Huntington Park (1993) 20 Cal. App. 4th 1474, 1477-1478.) 

Where relief is promptly sought and no prejudice would be done to the opposing party, only very slight evidence is required to justify the setting aside of a default.  For this reason, orders denying relief under section 473 are carefully scrutinized on appeal. (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal..4th 975, 980; Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 233.)

DISCUSSION

The Court erroneously dismissed the action, believing that Plaintiff had not corrected the errors noted in the Clerk’s rejection of Plaintiff’s original default package.  In fact, Plaintiff corrected the errors on the same date as the rejection.  Therefore, the Court vacates the dismissal of the action. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to vacate dismissal under Code Civ. Proc. §473(b).  The action is reinstated.  The Court sets a hearing on Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment for May 6, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 30, 2024                                                        ___________________________

Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court