Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 22STCV27695, Date: 2024-01-29 Tentative Ruling

This case involves the alleged breach of an oral contract. On August 25, 2022, Plaintiff, Farzana Hossain, filed a Complaint against Defendants, Amandeep Singh Sodhi (“Sodhi”) and 777 Entertainments. Plaintiff alleges that she helped organize and promote events for Sodhi and his company, 777 Entertainments. In exchange Defendants, agreed to pay Plaintiff for her services. However, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff. Sodhi was served with the summons and complaint by substituted service on September 26, 2022.

Sodhi and 777 Entertainments filed an Answer to the Complaint on September 1, 2023.

On October 3, 2023, Sodhi filed this motion to set aside the default under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b).

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) provides that a court may “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.” In addition, a court must vacate a default or dismissal when a motion for relief under Section 473, subdivision (b) is filed timely and accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect “unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)

The party or the legal representative must seek such relief “within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b); see Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 980 [“because more than six months had elapsed from the entry of default, and hence relief under section 473 was unavailable”]; People v. The North River Ins. Co. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 712, 721 [motion for relief under section 473 must be brought “within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months”].)

“The policy of the law is to have every litigated case tried upon its merits, and it looks with disfavor upon a party who, regardless of the merits of his case, attempts to take advantage of the mistake, surprise, inadvertence or neglect of his adversary.” (Palmer v. Moore (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 134, 142.)

Sodhi seeks relief because of his mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. In support, Sodhi offers his declaration where he states that his former business partner began a campaign to smear his reputation against him and his wife and threatened to kill him. As a result of his former partner’s conduct, Hossain fell into a depression, isolated himself, and entertained thoughts of suicide. As a result, Sodhi’s Answer to the Complaint was filed untimely. (Declaration of Amandeep Singh Sodhi, ¶¶ 15-19.)

Plaintiff argues Sodhi does not demonstrate the failure to timely respond was due to excusable neglect. In support, Plaintiff submits the declaration of her counsel, Fahim Rahman, who states that, in February 2023, he implored Sodhi to retain representation after initial attempts at resolution were unsuccessful. (Declaration of Fahim Rahman, ¶ 3.)

Based on the foregoing, the court finds Sodhi merits discretionary relief under 473. Sodhi establishes the default was taken due to his inadvertence, mistake, or excusable neglect. Sodhi’s counsel timely filed a motion to set aside the default. Plaintiff does not show what prejudice, if any, would result from setting aside the default at this juncture. Given the policy favoring disposition of cases upon their merits and Sodhi’s averments of mistake and neglect, the court finds Sodhi is entitled to relief. Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary are not persuasive.

The motion to set aside default is GRANTED. The default entered against Defendant Amandeep Singh Sodhi on April 4, 2023 is VACATED. Defendant’s Answer is deemed filed as of September 1, 2023.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court