Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This case arises from a botched cosmetic surgery procedure.  Plaintiff Gina Rodriguez is a celebrity talent manager.  She regularly appears on television and media.  Plaintiff hired Defendant Victoria Sophia Sanjurjo to apply facial fillers to her face.  Defendant’s treatment was allegedly so deficient, it resulted in substantial deformities to Plaintiff’s face.  Defendant also purportedly disclosed to Plaintiff’s friend, confidential details of the surgery.   

On May 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant.  The Complaint alleges two claims for professional negligence and violation of California’s constitutional right of privacy.  The Complaint seeks (1) $6,296 as amounts Plaintiff paid to Defendant, (2) $28,940 in losses when Plaintiff could not appear on a scheduled television program, and (3) $12,000 for future corrective procedures.   

Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing Defendant was served by substitute service on June 15, 2023.  Defendant was obligated to respond within 30 days. Defendant did not do so. Plaintiff successfully requested the entry of Defendant’s default, which was entered by the Clerk’s Office on July 31, 2023.  Plaintiff requested a default judgment on August 19, 2023, which was entered by the Court on October 20, 2023.  

This hearing is on Defendant’s motion to vacate default.  Defendant seeks discretionary relief under Code Civ. Proc. 473(b) on grounds of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.  Specifically, Defendant argues she was mistaken in failing to file a responsive pleading to the Complaint because she was under the mistaken belief that insurance defense counsel would be retained in time.  Defendant further argues that she never received the request for entry of default or request for entry of default judgment or the notice of ruling that the Court had entered default judgment, which were mailed to the wrong address, an address different than the one where substitute service was effected.    

LEGAL STANDARD 

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b)¿provides, in relevant part: 

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) 

The court has broad discretion to vacate the entry of default, default judgment, a dismissal, or other proceeding, but that discretion can be exercised only if the moving party establishes a proper ground for relief, by the proper procedure and within the set time limits. Pursuant to¿Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b), a motion to vacate cannot be brought more than six months after the proceeding was taken and must be made within a “reasonable time.” 

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b)¿allows a court to vacate a prior order upon a showing that the order was entered due to a party's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.  The terms mistake, inadvertence, surprise, and excusable neglect which warrant relief under¿Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b)¿are defined as follows: 

Mistake may be one of¿fact or law.  Mistake of¿fact occurs when a person understands the¿facts to be other than they are; a mistake of¿law occurs when a person knows the¿facts as they really are, but has a¿mistaken belief as to¿the legal consequences of those¿facts.  (People v. Kelly (1939) 35 Cal.App.2d 571, 574.)  “Mistake is not a ground for relief under¿section 473, subdivision (b), when the court finds that the ‘mistake’ is simply the result¿of professional incompetence, general ignorance of the law, or unjustifiable negligence in discovering the law”.  (Henderson v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 215, 229-230.)   

Further, the term “surprise,” as used in¿section 473, refers to “some condition or situation in which a party … is unexpectedly placed to his injury, without any default or negligence of his own, which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against.”  (Id. at 229-230.)   

Finally, as for inadvertence or neglect, “[t]o warrant relief under¿section 473¿a litigant’s neglect must have been such as might have been the act of a reasonably prudent person under the same circumstances.”  (Henderson, 187 Cal.App.4th at 229-230.)  A lawyer’s failure to discharge routine professional duties is not excusable.  “Conduct falling below the professional standard of care, such as the failure to timely object or to properly advance an argument is not therefore excusable.”  (Generale Bank Nederland N.V. v. Eyes of the Beholder Ltd. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1400.)   

Where the mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect is excusable “and the party seeking relief has been diligent, courts have often granted relief pursuant to the discretionary relief provision of¿section 473¿if no prejudice to the opposing party will ensue.” (Id.)  In such situations only “very slight evidence will be required to justify a court in setting aside the default.”  (Miller v. City of Hermosa Beach (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1136.)   

Moreover, because the law strongly favors trial and disposition on¿the merits, “any doubts in applying [Code of Civil Procedure] section 473¿must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default. Therefore, a trial court order denying relief is scrutinized more carefully than an order permitting trial on the merits.” (McCormick¿v.¿Board of Supervisors, 198 Cal.App.3d at 359-360 citing,¿Elston¿v.¿City of Turlock¿(1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 233.) 

DISCUSSION 

Defendant seeks discretionary relief under Code Civ. Proc. § 437, subdivision (b).   

Defendant claims mistake in believing that she did not need to respond to the Complaint and could simply appear at the case management conference.  But a mistake cannot be one based on ignorance of the law.  “Mistake is not a ground for relief under¿section 473, subdivision (b), when the court finds that the ‘mistake’ is simply the result¿of professional incompetence, general ignorance of the law, or unjustifiable negligence in discovering the law”.  (Henderson, 187 Cal.App.4th at 229-230.) 

Defendant next complains that she was not properly served with the request for entry of default and request for entry of default judgment.  The documents were served on the wrong address, a different address than the one that where Plaintiff effected substitute service.  The requests were served on 435 N. Roxbury Drive Suite 302 and not on 435 N. Roxubury Drive, Suite 402.  Plaintiff does not dispute that the service was made to the wrong address.  Accordingly, because Defendant never received the requests, she was surprised by the entry of default and default judgment and her neglect in failing to timely respond is excusable.   

There is no prejudice to Plaintiff, particularly given Plaintiff’s lack of proper notice to Defendant.  The Opposition also does not specify any prejudice to Plaintiff.   

Defendant was diligent in filing this motion to vacate; the motion is brought within 180 days of the default judgment.  Where there is no prejudice and Defendant was diligent, only “very slight evidence will be required to justify a court in setting aside the default.”  (Miller, 13 Cal.App.4th at 1136.)   

Moreover, because the law strongly favors trial and disposition on¿the merits, “any doubts in applying [Code of Civil Procedure] section 473¿must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default.” (McCormick, 198 Cal.App.3d at 359-360.)  

On these facts, the Court concludes discretionary relief is warranted.   

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendant Victoria Sophia Sanjuro’s motion to vacate default.     

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED:  April 17, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court