Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STLC03036, Date: 2022-08-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STLC03036 Hearing Date: August 9, 2022 Dept: 25
PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO VACATE AND CORRECT DISMISSAL AND ENTER DEFAULT
JUDGMENT
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Karola Weber
RESP. PARTY: None
MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DISMISSAL AND
ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT
(CCP § 473(b), Cal.
Rules of Court, Rule 3.1800)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Karola
Weber’s Motion to Vacate and Correct Dismissal is GRANTED. The dismissal entered on June 17, 2022, is
HEREBY VACATED and Dismissal is entered as to Does 1-10 ONLY.
Plaintiff
Karola Weber’s Request for DEFAULT JUDGMENT is CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 31, 2022 at
9:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the continued
hearing, Plaintiff must file and serve supplemental papers as requested
herein. Failure to do so will result in
the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.
SERVICE:
[ ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule
3.1300) YES
[ ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) YES
[ ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c,
1005(b)) YES
OPPOSITION: None
filed as of August 7, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None
REPLY: None
filed as of August 7, 2022. [ ]
Late [X] None
ANALYSIS:
I.
Background
On May 3, 2022, Plaintiff Karola
Weber (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against JetBlue Airways Corporation
(“Defendant”) for breach of contract and negligence. On June 10, 2022, default was entered as to
Defendant. On June 17, 2022, Plaintiff
submitted the Default Judgment package.
On the same day, Plaintiff filed a Request for Dismissal, dismissing the
entire action. On July 1, 2022, the
Court rejected Plaintiff’s request for default judgment because the entire
action had been dismissed.
Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte
Application to Vacate and Correct Dismissal and Enter Default Judgment on July
7, 2022, which was denied on July 8, 2022.
On July 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed
the instant motion to Vacate and Correct Dismissal and Enter Default
Judgment. No opposition was filed.
II.
Legal Standard
Pursuant to Code
of Civil Procedure §473(b), both discretionary and mandatory relief is
available to parties when a case is dismissed. Discretionary relief is available under the
statute as “the court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or
his or her legal representative from judgment, dismissal, order, or other
proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, or excusable neglect. (Code of
Civ. Proc. § 473(b).) Alternatively,
mandatory relief is available when “accompanied by an attorney’s sworn
affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.” (Ibid.) Under this statute, an application for
discretionary or mandatory relief must be made no more than six months after
entry of the judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding from which relief
is sought. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b); English v. IKON Business Solutions
(2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 130, 143.)
“‘[W]hen relief
under section 473¿is¿available, there is a strong¿public¿policy¿in¿favor¿of
granting relief and allowing the requesting party his or her day in court…[Citation.]”
(Rappleyea v. Campbell¿(1994) 8 Cal. 4th 975, 981-82.)
III.
Discussion
A.
Motion to Vacate and Correct Dismissal
Plaintiff seeks to
set aside the dismissal on the grounds that Plaintiff’s counsel “inadvertently
checked the incorrect box on the Request for Dismissal.” (Mot. p. 4, Salomons Decl. ¶ 6.) Instead of checking box 6, to dismiss Does
1-10 ONLY, Counsel checked box 5, thus, requesting dismissal of the entire
case. (Ibid.) Plaintiff argues that this error is “readily
apparent because the information regarding box 6 is filled in” and because Plaintiff
also submitted the Default Judgment package on June 17, 2022. (Ibid; Salomons Decl. ¶ 5.)
The Court finds
that Plaintiff’s Motion is timely and was filed with Counsel’s declaration
attesting to Counsel’s inadvertence in checking the wrong box on the judicial
counsel form for Request for Dismissal.
(See Salomons Decl.) Plaintiff’s
Motion to Vacate and Correct Dismissal is GRANTED. Dismissal entered on June 17, 2022, is
VACATED and dismissal is ENTERED as to DOES 1-10 ONLY.
B.
Request for Default Judgment
i.
Procedural Requirements
Plaintiff also
requests default judgment to be entered against Defendant on the basis of the
Default Package submitted on June 17, 2022.
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1800(a) provides:
“A party seeking a default judgment on declarations must
use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter Default)
(form CIV-100), unless the action is subject to the Fair Debt Buying Practices
Act, Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq., in which case the party must use
mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Fair Debt Buying Practices Act)
(form CIV-105)…The following must be included in the documents filed with the
clerk:
(1) … a brief summary of the case identifying the parties and
the nature of plaintiff's claim;
(2) Declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the
judgment requested;
(3) Interest computations as necessary;
(4) A memorandum of costs and disbursements;
(5) A declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant
against whom judgment is sought;
(6) A proposed form of judgment;
(7)
A dismissal of all
parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate
judgment against specified parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 579,
supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment;
(8) Exhibits as necessary; and
(9) A request for attorney fees if allowed by statute or by the
agreement of the parties.”
Here,
Plaintiff has filed the mandatory Form CIV-100 seeking default judgment against
Defendant JetBlue Airways Corporation, that includes an accounting of the
amount of judgment to be entered – $3,800.00 for the demand in the Complaint
and $265.00 for costs. (6-17-22 Request
for Entry of Default/Judgment.) Form
CIV-100, which Plaintiff’s Counsel signed, contains a declaration of
nonmilitary status. (Ibid.) Plaintiff has also filed a Statement of the
Case on June 17, 2022, identifying the parties and the nature of the claim
against Defendant. Furthermore,
Plaintiff has filed her own sworn declaration and exhibits setting out the
facts of the case. (Weber Decl.; Exs.
A-C.) In her Declaration, Plaintiff
states that she is seeking $3,800 because “[t]he value of the contents of [her]
suitcase are worth fair in excess of $3,800.00” and lists the items in her
suitcase that warrant this sum. (Weber
Decl. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff is seeking $3,800
based on Defendant’s liability limit of $3,800.00. (Ibid. at ¶ 11.) In Form CIV-100, Memorandum of Costs,
Plaintiff lists the costs requested as $225.00 in clerk’s filing fees and
$40.00 in process server’s fees. Plaintiff
has requested dismissal of Does 1-10, which has been granted, and has also
filed a Proposed Judgment. (7-1-22
Judgment.)
Given that Plaintiff has filed all the required documents,
Plaintiff has successfully complied with California Rules of Court, Rule
3.1800(a).
ii.
Substantive Requirements
“’Substantively, “[t]he judgment by default is said
to ‘confess’ the material facts alleged by the plaintiff, i.e., the defendant's
failure to answer has the same effect as an express admission of the matters
well pleaded in the complaint.’ (Steven M. Garber & Associates v.
Eskandarian (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 813, 823, second italics added.) The 'well-pleaded allegations of a complaint
refer to '"'all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions,
deductions or conclusions of fact or law.'"' (Evans v. City of Berkeley (2006) 38
Cal.4th 1, 6, quoting Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584,
591). Because the default confesses
those properly pleaded facts, the plaintiff has no responsibility to provide
the court with sufficient evidence to prove them—they are treated as true for
purposes of obtaining a default judgment. (Ostling v. Loring (1994) 27
Cal.App.4th 1731, 1746). But that is all
the default does. There is no penalty for defaulting.” (Kim v. Westmoore
Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 281.)
Plaintiff seeks damages on the basis of breach of contract
and negligence causes of action.
Plaintiff states that on February
27, 2022, she “flew on JetBlue Airways Corporation flight number 842 from
Savannah, Georgia to New York John F. Kennedy International Airport.” (Weber Decl. ¶ 2; Ex. A.) At the JFK Airport, she transferred to
“JetBlue Airways Corporation flight number 2223” to Los Angeles International
Airport. (Weber Decl. ¶ 3; Ex. B.) When Plaintiff arrived in Los Angeles, she
was informed by Defendant’s representative that her suitcase had not been
transferred to the Los Angeles Flight but would arrive on the next JetBlue
Airways flight. (Weber Decl. ¶ 6.) However, her suitcase did not arrive and was
permanently lost. (Ibid. at ¶¶
7-8.) On February 27, 2022, she was
given Baggage Report Number LAXB657704506 regarding the incident. (Ibid. at ¶ 9; Ex. C.) Plaintiff’s bag contained personal property
in excess of $3,800. (Ibid. at ¶ 10.)
Defendant’s “contract of carriage limits its liability to
$3,800.00.” (Ibid. at ¶ 11.)
“To prevail on a cause of action
for breach of contract, the plaintiff must prove (1) the contract, (2) the
plaintiff's performance of the contract or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the
defendant's breach, and (4) the resulting damage to the plaintiff. (Richman v. Hartley (2014) 224
Cal.App.4th 1182, 1186.)
Plaintiff’s Complaint is devoid of
factual support for her breach of contract action. She states that Defendant’s contract of
carriage, found on its website, “is arguably a contract.” (Statement p. 3.) Plaintiff claims, without citing to any
particular provision of the “arguable” contract that Defendant breached the
contract when it lost Plaintiff’s suitcase and is, therefore, liable in damages
in the amount of $3,800.
“The essential elements of a cause of action for negligence are: (1) the
defendant's legal duty of care toward the plaintiff; (2) the defendant's breach
of duty—the negligent act or omission; (3) injury to the plaintiff as a
result of the breach—proximate or legal cause; and (4) damage to the
plaintiff.” (Leyva v. Garcia (2018)
20 Cal.App.5th 1095, 1103.)
Plaintiff states that Defendant
“has a duty to act in such a manner so as not to lose a passenger’s baggage”
and it breached this duty when it lost the suitcase, which caused Plaintiff
damages in the amount of $3,800.00.
(Statement p. 3.)
The facts stated in the Complaint
and Statement of Facts are not sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a
contract or duty whereby Defendant would be liable to Plaintiff in the principal
amount requested.
Plaintiff requests $265.00 for Clerk’s filing fees and
process server’s fees. (Form CIV-100.). The
costs sought are allowable under Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5(a) and not
prohibited under Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5(b). Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to $265.00 in costs. Plaintiff does not request Interest or
Attorney’s Fees.
The Court CONTINUES the hearing on the
Request for Default Judgment to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to file
supplemental papers demonstrating the existence of a contract or a duty that
entitles Plaintiff to the damages requested.
IV.
Conclusion & Order
For the
foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Karola Weber’s Motion to Vacate and Correct
Dismissal is GRANTED. The Dismissal
entered on June 17, 2022, is HEREBY VACATED.
Dismissal is entered as to DOES 1-10 ONLY.
Plaintiff
Karola Weber’s REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT is CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 31, 2022 at
9:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the continued
hearing, Plaintiff must file and serve supplemental papers as requested
herein. Failure to do so will result in
the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.
Moving party is
ordered to give notice.