Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 23STCV02293, Date: 2023-06-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV02293 Hearing Date: June 22, 2023 Dept: 78
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 78
YIUCHUNG WONG, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
KAPTAIN KIRK KIRKLAND, et al.,
Defendants. Case No.: 23STCV02293
Hearing Date: June 22, 2023
[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:
DEFENDANT KAPTAIN KIRK KIRKLAND’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE JUDGMENT.
Defendant Kaptain Kirk Kirkland’s Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default is DENIED without prejudice.
Moving party to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This is an action for unlawful detainer. The Complaint alleges as follows.
Plaintiffs Yiuchung Wong and Raymond Chan (“Plaintiffs”) lease residential property to defendant Kaptain Kirk Kirkland (“Defendant”). Defendant is past due on his rent in the amount of $87,000.00. Plaintiffs served Defendant with the 3-Day Notice on January 1, 2023.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 1, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint for a single cause of action for Unlawful Detainer.
On February 27, 2023, Defendant filed an Answer.
On March 3, 2023, the Court held a Case Management Conference. Defendant failed to appear at that hearing.
On March 27, 2023, the Court held a non-jury trial on this matter and found in favor of Plaintiffs. Defendant also failed to appear at trial.
On April 19, 2023, the Court entered judgment for Plaintiffs and against Defendant.
On April 24, 2023, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Set Aside Judgment.
On June 12, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an Opposition.
As of June 20, 2023, no Reply has been filed.
DISCUSSION
I. MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DEFAULT
Defendant Kaptain Kirk Kirkland moves to set aside the judgment entered against him on April 19, 2023.
Under Code of Civil Procedure, section 473, subdivision (b), an application for relief must be made no more than six months after entry of the order from which relief is sought and must be accompanied by an affidavit of fault attesting to the moving party’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b); English v. IKON Business Solutions (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 130, 143.) 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)
“It is the policy of the law to favor, wherever possible, a hearing on the merits, and appellate courts are much more disposed to affirm an order where the result is to compel a trial upon the merits than they are when the judgment by default is allowed to stand and it appears that a substantial defense could be made. Stated another way, the policy of the law is to have every litigated case tried upon its merits, and it looks with disfavor upon a party, who, regardless of the merits of the case, attempts to take advantage of the mistake, surprise, inadvertence, or neglect of his adversary.” (Weitz v. Yankosky (1966) 63 Cal.2d 849, 854–855.)
Here, Defendant contends that he was unable to attend trial because he was sick with COVID and because he had an emergency medical procedure. Defendant attaches a hospital report detailing his illness.
Defendant also argues that the Subject Property suffered from a number of defects rendering it uninhabitable.
While the Court agrees that Defendant’s hospitalization would constitute reasonable neglect for Defendant’s failure to appear at trial under section 473, the Court is unable to determine if Defendant was actually in the hospital or otherwise incapacitated on the day of trial based on the record presented.
First, Defendant attaches no affidavit to his Motion attesting to his reasonable neglect as required by section 473.
Second, though Defendant attaches a hospital report from March 3, 2023 to his motion, the report does not indicate how long Defendant was hospitalized, the severity of his condition, or other factors relevant to his ability to appear in Court. Defendant’s evidence only demonstrates that he was unavailable on March 3, nearly a month before trial.
Third, Defendant does not explain why he did not appear remotely or otherwise inform the Court of his status prior to trial or after trial but prior to his filing this motion on April 24, 2023.
Accordingly, Defendant Kaptain Kirk Kirkland’s Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
DATED: June 22, 2023
___________________________
Hon. Jill Feeney
Judge of the Superior Court
