Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 23STCV18888, Date: 2024-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18888    Hearing Date: February 20, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

          Defendant Peggy Mares (“Mares”) seeks to vacate default entered on October 10, 2023. 

The Court GRANTS the request as to Mares.  The Court DENIES the request as to defendant Broken Halos, LLC (“BHL”).   

The Court sets an OSC re Entry of Default Judgment against BHL for May 1, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.  The Court takes today’s OSC re Entry of Default Judgment off calendar. The Court continues the Case Management Conference set for today to May 1, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. and directs both parties to file Case Management Conference statements in advance of the conference. 

          Mares as a pro per litigant cannot make this motion on behalf of the corporate entity BHL.  BHL must be represented by counsel.  Accordingly, no relief can be granted to BHL.

          As to Mares, the Court finds that she has demonstrated a right to relief under Civil Code § 473(b).  This statutory provision allows the Court to relieve a party from default based on “her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.”  Mares has demonstrated that she made a simple calculation error that she remedied almost immediately by filing an answer just a few days late. 

The chronology of this case includes:  service of process on Mares on or about November 8, 2023; an unsuccessful request for entry of default on October 9, 2023, filed by Plaintiff Caribbean Blues, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) immediately after the time limit for an answer expired; a successful request for default by Plaintiff filed the very next day on October 10, 2023; and an answer filed by Mares on October 12, 2023, just days after her answer had been due.  The Court credits Mares’s testimony that she made a minor computational error based on her understanding of when she was served that resulted in a filing that was just slightly late.

In the context of this case, the Court finds that this was “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” sufficient to relieve Mares of her default. 

The answer filed by Mares on October 12, 2023 shall serve as the answer in this matter.

To the extent that Plaintiff wishes to pursue a default judgment against BHL, Plaintiff should submit judgment apers specifically as to BHL.  The Court sets an OSC re default judgment as to BHL for May 1, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.