Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV00436, Date: 2024-06-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV00436    Hearing Date: June 27, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Mahfoud v. Letizia, et al., Case No. 24SMCV00436 

Hearing Date June 27, 2024

Defendant Wonder Nights, LLC’s Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment

 

Plaintiff, in pro per, sued defendants Letizia and Wonder Nights arising out of a claim that plaintiff loaned defendants money for a business, which was not repaid, and plaintiff was locked out of the business.

 

On April 9, 2024 default was entered against Wonder Nights, which moves to set aside based on counsel’s inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. Defense counsel stated he did not inquire into whether his client was properly served and took his time to prepare the answer on the assumption that his client was still waiting for proper service. Morris Decl. ¶4, 6.

 

Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) provides the statutory framework for setting aside a default, including filing a proposed answer. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(b) requires the first page of each paper to specify immediately below the case number “(1) The date, time, and location, if ascertainable, of any scheduled hearing and the name of the hearing judge, if ascertainable[.]”

 

Plaintiff argues the motion fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b)’s requirement that a copy of the proposed answer be filed, and Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(b) requirement that a motion provide the hearing date information.

 

No reply was filed. The court has no basis to find that plaintiff was properly served, and the moving papers fail to include information regarding the date, time, location and hearing officer.

 

Failure to serve notice with the hearing date information renders notice defective. Code Civ. Proc. §1010 [“Notices must be in writing, and the notice of a motion, other than for a new trial, must state when and the grounds upon which it will be made, and the papers, if any, upon which it is to be based.”; Bohn v. Bohn (1913) 164 Cal. 532, 536-537 [failure to include notice of date and time of hearing in notice of motion renders the notice fatally defective]; Galleria Plus, Inc. v. Hanmi Bank (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 535, 538 [addressing notice of motion for sanctions]; Cal. Rules of Court 3.1110(b)(1) [the notice of a motion must set forth "the date, time, and location, if ascertainable, of any scheduled hearing. . . ."].

 

The motion may be continued to allow defendant to give proper notice and comply with applicable statutes.