Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV02775, Date: 2024-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV02775    Hearing Date: October 24, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Premier Financial Services, LLC v. Steinberg, Case no. 24SMCV02775

Hearing date October 24, 2024

Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default

Plaintiff sues for breach of vehicle lease agreement, account stated and unjust enrichment. Default was entered 9/16/2024. Defendant in pro per moves to set aside and for an order quashing service for lack of jurisdiction. The motion is unopposed.

Under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §473(b), the court may set aside a dismissal taken against a party through “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Relief under §473 should be liberally granted because public policy favors resolution of disputes on the merits, rather than through technical default. E.g., Fasuvi v. Permatex, Inc. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 681, 685. 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, the party may serve and file a notice of motion to set aside the default or default judgment and for leave to defend the action. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §473.5(a).

Defendant moves under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §473.5 to set aside the 9/16/2024 default, arguing he did not receive actual notice. Personal service allegedly occurred 8/11/2023 at 3:30 PM at 3455 Grand View Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90066. MTSA 5:12, ex. B. Defendant asserts he was not present at time of service and argues the description could describe the property owner, gardener and other men in the neighborhood. MTSA 5:12-17.

Defendant further asserts he was unaware of the lawsuit until he received notice via mail of the default entered against him. MTSA 6:12-14. Defendant seeks relief under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §473.5(a) and included a proposed responsive pleading (an answer). MTSA ex. A. California has a public policy of resolving issues on their merits. Further, given that plaintiff does not oppose the motion, setting aside the 9/16/2024 default is appropriate.

Defendant moves under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §418.10(a)(1) to quash service of the summons due to lack of jurisdiction but provides no facts or allegations supporting this motion. Thus, there is no basis for the court to conclude that the court lacks jurisdiction.

The motion to set aside the default is GRANTED. The motion for an order quashing service of summons for lack of jurisdiction is DENIED. Defendant to separately file the answer within 5 court days.