Judge: George F. Bird, Jr., Case: 22CMCV00157, Date: 2022-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CMCV00157    Hearing Date: October 20, 2022    Dept: B

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

 

EASY FINANCIAL, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,

                        Plaintiff,

            vs.

 

WALTER LEE ADGER, and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, Inclusive,

 

                        Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

     

CASE NO: 22CMCV00157

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION BY DEFENDANT, ANTHONY CHAPPELL, TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND VACATE JUDGMENT

 

Dept. B

DATE: Thursday October 20, 2022

TIME:  8:30 A.M.

 

COMPLAINT FILED: June 3, 2022

TRIAL DATE: Not set

 

I.       BACKGROUND

            Claimant Anthony Chappell (“Claimant”) moves to set aside the default judgment entered on September 9, 2022, under Code Civ. Pro., § 473(b). Claimant alleges he is an unnamed defendant in the action because he was a tenant in the property at issue located at 755 E. 94 Street, Los Angeles, California 90002 (“The Property”).

            In the declaration presented by Claimant, he alleges that Walter Lee Adger was the former owner of The Property and Ms. Moody-Wilson was the owner as of April of 2021. (Decl. A.C. ¶ 8.) In April of 2021, Claimant allegedly signed a rental agreement for The Property with Ms. Moody-Wilson. (Id. at ¶ 9.) After Walter Lee Adger defaulted on repayment of the loan for The Property, Easy Financial, LLC. (“Plaintiff”) bought The Property at a public auction. Plaintiff instituted an unlawful detainer action against Walter Lee Adger, who Plaintiff believes to be the true owner of The Property, and the unnamed defendants.

            A default judgment was entered in the unlawful detainer action, but Claimant alleges that he was not served or provided notice before the default was entered. Claimant stated that in early September 2022 he saw what he believes was the Three Day Notice to Quit on the door, contacted Ms. Moody-Wilson, and Ms. Moody-Wilson stated that she would handle it. (Id. at ¶ 16.) Claimant alleges that he became aware of the eviction lawsuit on September 26, 2022, when he encountered the Sherriff’s Notice to Vacate on his door. (Id. at ¶ 17.)

 

II.    FILINGS

A.    Motions filed by Claimant.

            Claimant made no appearance in the action and did not file any documents with the court until October 5, 2022, when Claimant filed a Motion and Notice of Motion to Set Aside Default and Vacate Judgment and an Ex Parte Application to Advance Hearing Date. The Ex Parte application was denied on October 6, 2022. Claimant subsequently filed a second Motion and Notice of Motion to Set Aside Default and Vacate Judgment and an Ex Parte Application to Advance Hearing Date on October 12, 2022. The Ex Parte Application to Advance Hearing Date was granted on October 14, 2022, and the hearing was scheduled for October 20, 2022.  

 

B.     Opposition.

            Plaintiff filed a combine opposition to the Ex Parte Application to Advance Hearing Date and opposition to the Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment on October 12, 2022 (the “Opposition”). The Opposition offered a list of the multitude of notices provided by Plaintiff of the pending action before the default was entered. Plaintiff properly executed a Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession under Code Civ. Proc., § 415.46.

 

III.  DISCUSSION

            Claimant cannot pursue a motion to set aside default and vacate judgment because the correct avenue to challenge the judgment is to file a claim of right to possession and follow the process to object to enforcement under Code Civ. Proc., § 1174.3. Code Civ. Proc., § 1174.3, subd. (a)(1) states that “… any occupant not named in the judgment for possession who occupied the premises on the date of the filing of the action may object to enforcement of the judgment against that occupant by filing a claim of right to possession as prescribed in this section.” The section clearly explains the court process for executing the claim of right to possession, the process for the court setting a hearing, and the outcomes if the court determines the objections made are valid. Code Civ. Proc., § 1174.3.

            Plaintiff argues that Claimant is estopped from pursuing the claim of right to possession remedy under Code Civ. Proc., § 1174.3 because of the Prejudgment Claim of Right of Possession filed by Plaintiff under Code Civ. Proc., § 415.46. The Court will not address the validity of that argument at this time as it does not have any impact on the determination of the current motion. The proper avenue for Claimant to object to enforcement of the judgment is through a claim of right to possession. Claimant may not circumvent the process by filing this Motion to Set Aside Default and Vacate Judgment.

             

IV.  CONCLUSION

Motion to Set Aside Default and Vacate Judgment is DENIED.

             

                       

 

                                                                        Dated: October 20, 2022

                                                                        _________________________________

                                                                        Hon. George Bird.

                                                                        Judge of the Superior Court