Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV22899, Date: 2024-06-28 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: June 28, 2024

Case Name: Ronquillo v. Sohn, et al.

Case No.: 21STCV01659

Matter: Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment

Moving Party: Defendants Sidney Sungchul Sohn, Alexander Tsao, and 

Venerable-Counselors At Law, PC.

Responding Party: Plaintiff Jose Ronquillo 

Ruling: The Court is inclined to deny the Motion, but will hear further 

argument.

Plaintiff to give notice.

This is a matter relating to legal malpractice, fraud, and conversion.  

On May 16, 2024, a default judgment in the amount of $1,000,000 was entered against Defendants Sidney Sungchul Sohn, Alexander Tsao, and Venerable-Counselors At Law, PC.

Defendants now seek to set aside their default and default judgment under Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b), (d).  Defendants contend that (1) they were never served with the Complaint/First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) and (2) prior to the deadline to file an answer, they believed that this case would be dismissed because the underlying personal injury suit had fully settled through their negotiation as to the amount of a Medi-Cal lien.  

Code Civ. Proc. § 473(d) allows a court to set aside a void judgment, such as a judgment that was entered after there was improper service of the summons and complaint. 

The discretionary provision of Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b) provides, “The court may, upon any terms as may be just, 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.  Application for this relief . . . shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.”  The statute is liberally construed in order to give effect to the policy favoring resolution of disputes on their merits.  (Hopkins & Carley v. Gens (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1410.)  To be entitled to relief under the statute, the moving party must demonstrate a satisfactory excuse for his or her default, as well as diligence in seeking relief after discovery of the default.  Whether the moving party has carried this burden is a question to be resolved in the discretion of the trial court.  (Ibid.)

For relief to be warranted, any mistake must be something other than professional incompetence or ignorance of the law.  (Hearn v. Howard (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1206.)  The term “surprise” refers to “some condition or situation in which a party is unexpectedly placed to his injury, without any default or negligence of his own, which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against.”  (Ibid., internal quotations omitted.)  Similarly, to be excusable, a litigant’s inadvertence or neglect must have been “such as might have been the act of a reasonably prudent person under the same circumstances.”  (Ibid.)

Defendants’ evidence fails to even tender the issue of improper service of the Complaint/FAC.  There is no statement in Defendants’ declarations whatsoever that they were not served or that they were served improperly.  This is inadequate and does not shift the burden to Plaintiff.  Defendants also do not explain why relief under CCP § 473(d) would otherwise be available.  

As to Defendants’ second contention, even if the Court were to believe that Plaintiff directly called Defendants and told them that (a) he and his current counsel had parted ways, (b) Plaintiff wished to dismiss the instant matter because Defendants finalized a settlement in the underlying matter, (c) Defendants provided a notice of dismissal to Plaintiff, and (d) Defendants never received any other filings in this matter, the Court finds Defendants’ conduct to be unreasonable and inexcusable.  It defies logic that attorneys at law would completely abandon a lawsuit because someone orally represented that the suit would be dismissed.  Any reasonable person or attorney would have checked the docket to see if a request for dismissal had actually been filed.

Furthermore, relief cannot be provided under CCP § 473(b) because a proposed responsive pleading was not attached to the instant Motion. 

The Court also notes that (a) Defendants failed to file a reply and (b) the Court does not find credible the contention that Defendants discovered the million dollar judgment in this matter by random review and “happenstance” four days after it had been entered, despite that the case was filed and purportedly settled in 2021.  

For all of these reasons, the Court is inclined to deny the Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment, but will hear further argument.

Plaintiff to give notice.