Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: BC697315, Date: 2024-02-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC697315    Hearing Date: February 29, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

           Plaintiff and Cross-defendant Azuka Egun (“Egun”) makes a motion to vacate the Default and Default Judgment entered against Egun Plaintiff.  The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.

          The title of Egun’s motion does not clearly describe the scope of relief Egun seeks.  As described more specifically in the briefing of the motion, Egun in fact seeks to set aside: (a) the Court’s September 24, 2021 dismissal without prejudice of Egun’s claim; and (b) the judgment following a November 21, 2022 trial on the cross-claim against Egun at which Egun failed to appear.

          The Court briefly summarizes the procedural facts.  Egun originally filed the complaint more than six years ago, on March 9, 2018.  The Court dismissed Egun’s complaint without prejudice on or about September 24, 2021.  The Court did so for failure of Egun to comply with the Court’s order to arbitrate and failure to prosecute. 

While Egun’s motion characterizes what occurred on December 9, 2022 as an order striking the answer to the cross claim, it was actually an order after a November 21, 2022 court trial on the cross-claim against Egun—a trial at which Egun did not appear.  The Court conducted the trial and issued a detailed order which became the basis for a judgment.

Egun filed this motion past the six-month time limit set by California Code of Civil Procedure section 473.  Egun agrees that any claim under that statute is barred.  He therefore asks the Court to exercise its inherent discretion to set aside the former rulings, including the decisions made at a court trial which Egun did not attend.  The Court declines to do so on the facts of the case.

The information submitted by Egun is insufficient for the Court to conclude that the extensive proceedings spanning many years—on a case filed over six years ago—should be undone at this late date.  Egun states that he was not aware of the court rulings and avers generally that he “continued to communicate with my attorney” and that the attorney “assured me that everything was going well and that I should not worry about anything.”  (Egun Decl. ¶¶ 4-6.)  These are generalized assertions that do not explain the passage of time, what Egun did to follow up on this case, or what Egun believed was happening in the case over the course of many years.  To the extent that Egun’s attorney did not properly communicate with Egun, Egun might have a claim against the attorney or his estate.  But on the facts of this case, there is an insufficient basis to set aside the prior rulings and restart the case.  For this reason, the Court denies the motion.