Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 24STCV04470, Date: 2025-01-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV04470    Hearing Date: January 28, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion to set aside entry of default is GRANTED.   

            On 2/22/2024, Plaintiff John Lewis III (Plaintiff) filed suit against Jafedt Martinez (Defendant) alleging negligence.

            On 11/12/2024, Defendant moved to set aside the entry of default.

Discussion

            Defendant argues that default should be set aside on the grounds that “[t]he Court accepted [Defendant’s] filing of the Answer on August 27, 2024, as well as the first appearance fee and jury fees paid on behalf of [Defendant] in the amount of $620.21 and $150.00, respectively.” (Motion, 2: 10-13.)

            However, this argument ignores the fact that default was entered on 4/16/2024. As a party in default, Defendant could not subsequently file a valid answer. (See Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc. (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 381, 385-86, noting that the entry of default terminates a defendant’s rights to take any further affirmative steps in litigation until either his default is set aside or a default judgment is entered.)

Accordingly, Defendant had no standing to file an answer at the time of filing, and therefore Plaintiff had no obligation to demur or move to strike the answer. Similarly, regardless of whether or not Defendant’s answer was “accepted,” he had no standing to participate in this litigation, and thus had no legitimate ability to file an answer to be accepted.

As such, the determinative question is whether or relief can be granted.

Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 473, subdivision (b) provides:

The 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. 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.

Here, default was entered against Defendant on 4/16/2024, and he moved to set aside default on 11/12/2024. Accordingly, Mr. Gonzalez moves to set aside the entry of default outside of the sixth month deadline for relief. (CCP § 473, subd. (b). However, contrary to Defendant’s contention otherwise, “[a]fter six months from entry of default, a trial court may still vacate a default on equitable grounds even if statutory relief is unavailable.” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 981 

However, in order to avail itself of this equitable relief, a party must make the following showing: “[f]irst, the defaulted party must demonstrate that it has a meritorious case. Secondly, the party seeking to set aside the default must articulate a satisfactory excuse for not presenting a defense to the original action. Lastly, the moving party must demonstrate diligence in seeking to set aside the default once it had been discovered.” (Stiles v. Wallis (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 1143, 1147.)

Here, Defendant’s motion includes a responsive answer which could show that he could have a meritorious case. Second, counsel submitted a declaration taking responsibility for the confusion over the entry of default and the delay in moving to set it aside. (See Baurac Decl.) As part of that declaration, Ms. Baurac notes that she believed that the filing of the answer on 8/27/2024 was valid. That this incorrect belief was legitimately held is evidenced by Defendant’s subsequent propounding of written discovery and subpoenas on 8/30/2024. (Id.) Given that this conduct took place within the six-month period, the Court is persuaded that Defendant’s conduct was the result of attorney error and confusion, rather than intentional delay or gamesmanship. As such, the Court finds the conditions for equitable relief to be met. (Rappleyea, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 981.)

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to set aside is granted.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  January    , 2025

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.