Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 24STCV13144, Date: 2025-05-15 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

Case Number: 24STCV13144    Hearing Date: May 15, 2025    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY:  Defendant Lisa Hallaian (“Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Brown White & Osborn LLP (“Plaintiff”)

            The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

             This action arises out of an attorney-client relationship. Plaintiff sues Defendant pursuant to a May 24, 2024 complaint (“Complaint”) alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; and (2) account stated.           

            On January 21, 2025 Plaintiff, in propria persona, filed the instant motion to set aside and vacate judgment (the “Motion”). On March 20, 2025, Defendant filed an opposition. On May 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a reply.

DISCUSSION

            “A motion for relief under section 473 is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and an appellate court will not interfere unless there is a clear showing of an abuse. [Citation.] The statute is remedial and should be liberally applied to carry out the policy of permitting trial on the merits, but the moving party has the burden of showing good cause. [Citations.]” (David v. Thayer (1980) 133 Cal.App.3d 892, 904-905.) 

Section 473 subdivision (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) provides for both discretionary and mandatory relief from a judgment, dismissal, and/or order or other proceeding taken against a party through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (CCP, § 473, subd. (b) [mandatory relief more narrowly targeted to defaults, default judgments, and dismissals]; Pagnini v. Union Bank, N.A. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 298, 302.) 

The discretionary provision of section 473, subdivision (b), states that “[t]he court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her 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 and be made within a reasonable time not exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken. (CCP, § 473, subd. (b).) 

            The Clerk of the Court entered default against Defendant on September 9, 2024. On December 30, 2024, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant. Defendant asserts that she was not served with the Complaint and that prior to receiving the notice of judgment in the mail, she had no notice of this action. (Mot., p. 3.) The Court notes that the address to which the judgment was mailed is the same address where the summons and Complaint were served on June 23, 2024, and is also the same address Defendant identifies as her own in this Motion. (compare 8/01/2024 POS with 1/13/2025 Notice of Judgment and Motion.)  As such, no good cause exists for granting the Motion.

The Court further notes that a motion for relief pursuant to CCP section 473 subdivision (b) must be “accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein.” Defendant has not filed a copy of her answer proposed to be filed.

The Motion is DENIED.

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 15th day of May 2025