Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 23STCV27726, Date: 2024-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV27726    Hearing Date: October 4, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendants BARBARA MENDOZA, JOHNNY RAMIREZ and LISA GRANADO (collectively, “Defendants”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff DANNY NAVARRO (“Plaintiff”)

The Court has considered the moving and opposition papers.  No reply has been filed.  Any reply was required to have been filed and served at least five court days prior to the hearing.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)

BACKGROUND

             On November 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint for equitable relief (“Complaint”), seeking to vacate the judgment entered in another case – Barbara Mendoza v. Danny Navarro, et al., LASC No. 19STCV29385. 

            Defendants have not filed a responsive pleading to the Complaint.  On January 26, 2024, default was entered against Defendants.  On July 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Judgment in view of Defendants’ default.

            On July 24, 2024, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and/or Default Judgment (the “Motion”).  Plaintiff filed an opposition on September 23, 2024.

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

             Plaintiff objects to the Declaration of Azuka Uzoh (“Uzoh Decl.”), submitted by Defendant in support of the Motion.  The objections are OVERRULED.

DISCUSSION

The court is empowered to relieve a party or their legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against them through their mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.  (CCP § 473, subd. (b).)  Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.  (Id.)  The law favors a trial on the merits and courts therefore liberally construe section 473.  (Bonzer v. City of Huntington Park (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1477.)  Doubts in applying section 473 are

resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default.  (Id. at 1478.)

            In support of the Motion, Defendants’ counsel declares that on November 18, 2023, she received an email from the granddaughter of one of the defendants, alerting her to this action.  (Uzoh Declaration, ¶ 6.)  She, however, traveled out of the country in the month of December 2023, during which she was informed the Defendants had been served with the summons and complaint in this case.  (Id., ¶ 8.)  She was provided a copy of the summons and complaint after she returned from vacation on January 12, 2024.  (Id., ¶ 9.)  Defendants’ counsel further states that it was her fault that a responsive pleading was not filed, as her office lost track of the case.  (Id., ¶ 10.)

            The Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately shown that the dismissal of the Complaint was the result of Plaintiff ’s counsel’s mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect.  In addition, the Motion is timely filed within six months of the entry of default, and is accompanied by a copy of the answer proposed to be filed.  Plaintiff’s claim in the Opposition implying that fault should be attributed to Defendants themselves and not to Defendants’ counsel is not well-supported, especially in light of the sworn statement from Defendant’s counsel.

            Plaintiff also argue in his opposition that Defendant should be required to pay compensatory legal fees in the amount of $2,230, representing one (1) hour preparing the three (3) Requests for Entry of Default, and three (3) hours preparing the Application for Default Judgment, for a total of four (4) hours of attorney time, plus $30 in court filing fees.  (Declaration of Douglas F. Galanter).  CCP § 473(b) provides that “[t]court shall, whenever relief is granted based on an attorney’s affidavit of fault, direct the attorney to pay reasonable compensatory legal fees and costs to opposing counsel or parties…”   The Court finds that the requested amount in attorneys’ fees and costs is reasonable.

RULING

The Court, therefore, GRANTS the Motion and orders that the entry of default be vacated and that the Complaint be reinstated. Defendants are ordered to file their answer by close of business Monday, October 7, 2024.  Plaintiff’s application for default judgment is DENIED.   Court will hold a case management conference on October 18, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in this department. 

Further, Defendants’ attorney is ordered to pay $2,230.00 to Plaintiff’s counsel within ten days of the date of this order. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.           

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 4th day of October 2024