Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 20BBCV00450, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20BBCV00450    Hearing Date: October 20, 2023    Dept: A

OS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION FOR LEAVE FROM THE INJUNCTION

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is required.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  “The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no notice of intent to appear is received.”  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

Ines Ferreira and Studio City Care, LLC (and together, “Plaintiffs”) filed suit against Caroline Lee, Comet Hyesung, LLC, The Nu Life Inc., Eui Chang, and SBS Trust Deed Network (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging a breach of contract concerning real property located at 3034 Dona Nenita Pl., Studio City, CA 91604.

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on July 2, 2020 alleging seven (7) causes of action sounding in: (1) Declaratory Relief; (2) Intentional Trespass/TRO; (3) Accounting; (4) Attempted Wrongful Foreclosure in Violation of Civil Codes §§ 2943(e)(4) & 2923.5; (5) Bad Faith/Predatory Lending; (6) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; and (7) Breach of Contract and Implied covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.

Defendants’ answers were struck by order of this Court on February 26, 2021. The minute order reflects that the answers were filed after default had been entered against Defendants. The minute order further indicated that Defendants’ opposition to the motion to strike was to be disregarded as untimely filed. The motion to strike was granted and Plaintiffs thereafter entered default judgment on July 8, 2022, after a default prove up hearing. As part of the entry of default judgment the Court issued an order enjoining Defendants from conducting any type of foreclosure sale with regard to the real property at 3034 Dona Nenita PI., Studio City, CA, 91604 without a prior order from the Court.

On December 12, 2022, Defendants filed a notice of appeal of the default judgment ruling. On May 16, 2023, Defendants appeal was dismissed, and the case was ordered back to this Court on remittitur.

As a preliminary matter, the Court grants Defendants request for judicial notice. Each of the documents Defendants seek judicial notice of is a record of the Court which may be judicially noticed under Evidence Code § 452.

The Court notes that it is unclear upon what grounds Defendants seek relief. California Rule of Court Rule 8.54(a)(1) requires that motions be accompanied by a notice which states the grounds of the motion. Here, Defendant’s notice of motion states only that they seek an order specified in the Court’s September 20, 2022 injunction. The Court’s judgment does provide injunction shall not be lifted without the Court first granting a motion for relief, however Defendants must still provide some legal basis for bringing such a motion. Allowance of a motion for relief is not in and of itself grounds for bringing one.

In the state of California there are generally two grounds for relief from default and default judgments. The first is statutory relief based derived from C.C.P. § 473. C.C.P. § 473 provides both mandatory and discretionary relief from default where a motion has been filed within six months of the entry of default. The second is the Court’s inherent authority to grant relief where default judgment has been obtained through extrinsic fraud or mistake. (Department of Industrial Relations v. Davis Moreno Construction, Inc. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 560, 571.) This inherent authority is not subject to the six-month time limit required for statutory relief. (Id.)

Here, Defendants never sought to have the default set aside nor the default judgment vacated. Three years have passed since the entry of default and Defendant’s potential statutory relief has expired. Further, Defendant’s current motion does not speak to any of the showings required to obtain relief from the Court on the basis that the default was obtained by extrinsic fraud or mistake. Defendant’s motion instead asks the Court to proceed as if the default never happened and overturn its granting of the September 20, 2022 injunction with no legal basis.

Defendants essentially seek to litigate this case without ever having answered the complaint. Defendant has never sought relief from its default or default judgment., only filed an appeal of the entry of default which was ultimately dismissed. Defendants provide no grounds which would allow them to bring this motion before the Court to be considered on its merits.

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is DENIED.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Caroline Lee, Comet Hyesung, LLC, The Nu-Life Inc, Eui Chang, and SBS Trust Deed Network’s Motion for Leave came on regularly for hearing on October 20, 2023, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION FOR LEAVE IS DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  October 20, 2023                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles