Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 24STCV00131, Date: 2024-10-17 Tentative Ruling

CASE: Matilde Chen, et al. v. Partners Personnel Management Services, LLC, et al.

On January 3, 2024, plaintiffs Matilde Chen, Merlyn Julieta Chen, and Jesus Alberto Lopez Sandoval (collectively, Plaintiffs) commenced this FEHA employment action against their employers, defendants Partners Personnel Management Services, LLC (Partners) and Specialty Mattress, Inc. (Specialty).

On January 30, 2024, Plaintiffs served Specialty with the summons and complaint by substituted service. Specialty did not answer the complaint.

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”].)

Specialty seeks to vacate the entry of default on the grounds of mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect. Specifically, Specialty manager Ana Marie Serrano-Lopez inquired from co-defendant Partners about whether Partners would be providing an attorney to defend Specialty in this matter. On March 11, 2024, Partners finally informed Specialty that it would not be providing counsel for Specialty. (Serrano-Lopez Decl., ¶¶ 4-7.) Specialty obtained counsel as soon thereafter, in April 2024, because of financial issues. (Id., ¶ 10.) A copy of Specialty’s proposed answer is attached to Ms. Serrano-Lopez’s amended declaration. For these reasons, Specialty argues it is entitled to relief.

A court may vacate a default or dismissal when a motion for relief under Section 473, subdivision (b) is filed timely and accompanied by the party’s sworn affidavit attesting to the party’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)

The court finds that Specialty is entitled to relief. The motion was timely filed and is supported by the proposed pleading to be filed. There is no opposition filed directing a different result.

The unopposed motion to set aside entry of default is GRANTED. The default entered against Defendant Specialty Mattress, Inc. on April 10, 2024 is VACATED. Defendant’s proposed answer is deemed filed as of this date.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court