Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr, Case: 23SMCV04460, Date: 2024-12-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23SMCV04460 Hearing Date: December 4, 2024 Dept: 205
ADLY ABDELMALAK, an individual, Plaintiff, v. RIVERVIEW COTTAGE HOMES OC, LLC,
an Oregon limited liability company, et al., Defendants. |
Case No.: 23SMCV04460 Hearing Date: December 4, 2024 Trial Date: N/A [TENTATIVE] RULING RE: DEFENDANTS RIVERVIEW COTTAGE HOMES OC, LLC AND ELM AVE. LIVING LLC’S
MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DEFAULT AND REINSTATE ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT |
Background
This case arises from two real estate loans. Plaintiff Adly
Abdelmalak (Plaintiff) alleges that he was deceived by Defendants into
investing 1.5 million dollars and 5 million dollars, respectively, into two
development properties. (First Amended Complaint, ¶ 14) According to the
complaint, the two properties were of lesser value than what was represented to
Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶¶ 24, 34.)
On September 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant action
against Defendants Riverview Cottage Homes OC, LLC (Riverview); Elm Ave. Living
LLC (Elm); Chris Staggs (Staggs); Sahana Sridhar (Sridhar); Kamyar K. Rezaie
(Rezaie); and Wembley’s Inc. (Wembley), alleging causes of action for (1) Fraud
– Intentional Misrepresentation; (2) Financial Elder Abuse; (3) Money Had and
Received; (4) Money Lent; and (5) Breach of Personal Guarantee.
On March 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed the operative first
amended complaint (FAC).
On August 7, 2024, this Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to
strike Defendants Riverview and Elm’s answers and entered default against them.
On October 31, 2024, Defendants Riverview and Elm filed a
joint motion to set aside and vacate the default found against them, as well as
to reinstate their answer to the FAC.
No opposition was filed.
Legal Standard
Code of Civil Procedure Section 473.5 subdivision (a) provides in
relevant part:¿¿
¿
When service of a summons has not resulted in actual notice to a
party in time to defend the action and a default or default judgment has been
entered against him¿or her¿in¿the¿action, he¿or she¿may serve and file a notice
of motion to set aside¿the¿default or default judgment and for leave to defend
the action.¿ The¿notice of motion shall be served and filed within a reasonable
time, but in no event exceeding the earlier of: (i) two years after entry of a
default judgment against him¿or her; or (ii) 180 days after service on him¿or
her¿of a written notice that¿the¿default or default judgment has been
entered.¿
¿
Additionally, the motion “shall be accompanied by an affidavit
showing under oath that the party's lack of actual notice in time to defend the
action was not caused by his or her avoidance of service or inexcusable
neglect. The party shall serve and file with the notice a copy of the answer,
motion, or other pleading proposed to be filed in the action.” (Code Civ Proc. §
473.5(b).)¿
Analysis
Defendants Riverview and Elm move
for the Court to set aside and vacate the default judgment that was entered
against them on August 7, 2024, and reinstating their answer to the FAC.
Here, managing member of
Defendants Riverview and Elm, Chris Staggs, declares that in February of 2024,
Riverview and Elm retained an attorney to represent them in the instant action,
but that in May of 2024, this attorney and his firm withdrew from the case.
(Staggs Decl., ¶¶ 2, 4.) Mr. Staggs states that Riverview and Elm did not have
the sufficient funds to hire new counsel to replace their previous counsel. (Id.
at ¶ 4.) Mr. Staggs then states that in August of 2024, he learned that
this Court struck Riverview and Elm’s answer to the FAC and entered default
against them because they did not have counsel to represent them. (Id. at
¶ 5.) Mr. Staggs then states that in October of 2024, Riverview and Elm raised
sufficient funds to retain counsel for their representation in the instant
action and retained attorney Clark McCutchen. (Id. at ¶ 9.)
“[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.)
The Court finds that the
circumstances support an order to vacate and set aside the default judgement
rendered against Riverview and Elm, and reinstate their answer to the FAC.
Here, the motion was timely filed within 180 days after notice that the default
judgement has been entered against Riverview and Elm. Specifically, Riverview
and Elm received notice that default judgment was entered against them in
August of 2024 and promptly filed the instant motion less than three months
later.
Further, Mr. Staggs declares that
Riverview and Elm had insufficient funds to retain an attorney after their
initial counsel withdrew from their case. (Staggs Decl., ¶ 4.) It is considered
inexcusable neglect for individuals to contend that they did not have adequate
funds to retain counsel when contesting a default judgment because individuals
can “obtain[] a waiver of the fee by petition in forma pauperis . . . consult[]
attorneys in legal aid officers or proceed[] in propria persona.” (Davis v. Thayer (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 892, 906.)
However, under California law, a corporation, as well as an LLC, can only
appear in a civil matter through a licensed attorney. (Merco Construction
Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 727; Paradise
v. Nowlin (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 897, 898; Clean Air Transport Systems v.
San Mateo County Transit District (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 576, 578- 579.) “[I]t
is more appropriate and just to treat a corporation's failure to be represented
by an attorney as a defect that may be corrected, on such terms as are just in
the sound discretion of the court.” (CLD Constr., Inc. v. City of San Ramon,
120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1149 (2004). Therefore, The Court finds that Riverview
and Elm were diligent and took a reasonable time to secure replacement counsel.
The instant motion also is
supported by a copy of the answer to the FAC that Riverview and Elm wish to
reinstate. (Staggs Decl., Exhibit A.)
Lastly, Plaintiff does not oppose
the instant motion.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Defendants Riverview and Elm’s
motion to set aside and vacate default is GRANTED.
Dated: December 4, 2024
__________________________________________
Edward B. Moreton, Jr.
Judge of the Superior Court