Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 22STCV06783, Date: 2024-09-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV06783    Hearing Date: September 26, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Stephenson S. Alegre moves to set aside the default entered against him on May 13, 2024 following the request for entry of default filed by Plaintiff Jolyceline A. Baladad (“Plaintiff”).

The Court GRANTS the motion and vacates the default entered against Defendant.  Defendant shall within five days file the answer attached to the declaration of Defendant’s attorney.

Background

This is a real estate case.

Plaintiff and Defendant are siblings and joint tenants of a residential home located at 1308 Manley Drive, San Gabriel, California 91776 (the “Property”). Plaintiff seeks partition of the Property in this action.

Defendant suffers from methamphetamine addiction. (Stephanie Watson Alegre Decl. ¶ 3; Stephenson S. Alegre Decl. ¶ 9.) Defendant uses methamphetamine on a daily basis, and use of this drug affects his ability to concentrate, focus, and understand things. (Stephenson S. Alegre Decl. ¶ 9.) Following a referral by Defendant’s Deputy Public Defender in an unrelated criminal matter, Defendant underwent a psychological evaluation by Dr. Ann L. Walker, PhD, Forensic and Clinical Psychologist. (Stephenson S. Alegre Decl. ¶ 9.) Dr. Walker recommended a diagnosis of Severe Stimulant Abuse Disorder as a result of Defendant’s methamphetamine use. (Stephenson S. Alegre Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. C at pp. 6-7.)

According to the proof of service filed on April 2, 2024, Plaintiff was personally served with the First Amended Complaint and summons on February 27, 2022.

Defendant’s wife, Gabbie O. Watson, was personally served with Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) and summons on March 12, 2024.

Upon receiving the FAC, Defendant’s wife, Gabbie Watson, and daughter, Stephanie Watson Alegre, visited the Los Angeles County Law Library, where a librarian helped them look up this case and informed them of an upcoming Case Management Conference (“CMC”) set for April 10, 2024. (Gabbie O. Watson Decl. ¶ 4.)

Defendant attended the April 10, 2024 CMC. (Stephenson S. Alegre Decl. ¶ 10.) Defendant had used methamphetamine on the day prior. (Stephenson S. Alegre Decl. ¶ 10.) Defendant recalls being generally confused at what was being said at the CMC by the Court and by counsel for Plaintiff. (Stephenson S. Alegre Decl. ¶ 10.) Following the CMC, Defendant believed that he needed to appear with a lawyer at the next CMC, scheduled for June 21, 2024. (Stephenson S. Alegre Decl. ¶ 10.) Defendant did not understand that he had do take any other action – including filing an answer – prior to that date. (Stephenson S. Alegre Decl. ¶ 10.)  Defendant also suffers from bipolar disorder and stimulant use disorder.  (Stephenson S. Alegre Decl. ¶ 9.)

Defendant did not file an answer prior to the next CMC. On May 13, 2024, default was entered against Defendant.

On August 6, 2024, Defendant moved to set aside the entry of default. Plaintiff filed an opposition and Defendant filed a reply.

Legal Standard

Permissive Relief Under Code of Civil Procedure, section 473 (b)

The trial court has discretion to “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473 (b).) Such an application shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed in replacement of the pleading being set aside and shall be made within six months after the judgment, dismissal, order, or other pleading for which dismissal is being sought. (Ibid.)

Mandatory Relief under Code of Civil Procedure, section 473 (b)

Where a defendant in default moves for relief from default, judgment, or other dismissal against them entered as the result of her attorney’s mistake and “no more than six months” have passed since the entry of judgment, the court shall grant such relief as is requested, provided the motion satisfies all procedural requirements and the court does not find that the entry of default was caused by something other than the attorney's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473 (b).)

Discussion

Defendant’s declaration states that he did not understand what was happening at the April 10, 2024 CMC and therefore did not understand that he needed to file an answer.  This declaration creates a prima facie showing that Defendant defaulted in this case due to mistake and inadvertence. Defendant believed that he only needed to retain an attorney by the time of the next CMC, which he in fact did, showing that Defendant intended to defend this case.

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s failure to timely respond to the FAC and the fact that Defendant only retained an attorney days before the second CMC “shows calculated and systemic carelessness of Defendant,” barring relief from default. The Court disagrees. While the record may reflect evidence of carelessness, it does not appear to be calculated. Rather, it appears to be the inadvertent result of Defendant’s diagnosed bipolar disorder and stimulant use. 

The Court therefore finds that permissive relief from default is appropriate here and grants Defendant’s motion.