Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 24STCV04421, Date: 2024-10-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV04421    Hearing Date: October 14, 2024    Dept: 20

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kevin C. Brazile

Hearing Date:                         Monday, October 14, 2024

Case Name:                             Circa 1200, LLC v. Thomas

Case No.:                                24STCV04421

Motion:                                  Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default

Moving Party:                         Defendant Daniel Thomas Moore

Responding Party:                  Plaintiff Circa 200, LLC

Notice:                                    OK

Ruling:                                   Defendant’s motion is granted. Defendant is ordered to file his responses separately within ten (10) days and reserve hearing dates as appropriate.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND

            This is an action for unpaid rent. Plaintiff Circa 1200, LLC (“Plaintiff”) sued defendant Daniel Thomas Moore (“Defendant”), their former residential tenant, on February 22, 2024 for breach of contract and common counts.

            On July 12, the clerk entered Defendant’s default.

            On August 26, 2024, Defendant filed the instant motion to set aside and vacate the default. Plaintiff filed its opposition on October 1, 2024. On October 7, 2024, Defendant replied.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) provides for either discretionary or mandatory relief from certain prior actions or proceedings in the trial court. (Luri¿v. Greenwald¿(2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1124.)¿¿

“ ‘Under the discretionary relief provision, on a showing of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,”¿the court has discretion to allow relief from a “judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against”¿a party or his or her attorney.¿¿Under the mandatory relief provision, on the other hand, upon a showing by attorney declaration of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect,”¿the court shall vacate any “resulting default judgment or dismissal entered.” ’ ” (Ibid.; Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)¿¿

The party seeking such relief must do so “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”] (Rappleyea).) This time limit is jurisdictional. (Austin v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 918, 928; Rappleyea, supra, 8 Cal.4th at pp. 981–982 [“ ‘Beyond this period there is a strong public policy in favor of  the finality of judgments and only in exceptional circumstances should relief be granted.’ ”].) 

EVIDENTIARY MATTERS

Plaintiff’s objection to paragraph 5 of the the Declaration of Daniel Thomas Moore is sustained. Plaintiff’s objections are otherwise overruled.

DISCUSSION

            Defendant has established he is entitled to the relief he seeks.

            Defendant brought his motion promptly, less than two months after his default waas entered. He is well within the six-month statutory deadline.

Defendant has also established he failed to answer due to excusable neglect. Plaintiff contends “relief from default is NOT available when the error is [a] client's alone.” (Opp., 2:21.) This is simply incorrect. Mandatory relief from default may not be based on client fault. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b).) Section 473(b) also allows for discretionary relief, which “is available for a broader array of orders” but “reserved for ‘excusable neglect’ ”. (Martin Potts & Associates, Inc. v. Corsair, LLC (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 432, 438.) Here, Defendant cites his own excusable neglect as grounds for relief, not the neglect of an attorney.

Defendant attests, uncontradicted, that he acted promptly upon receiving the summons and complaint and reasonably believed he took appropriate action by forwarding his legal papers to an attorney. The attorney did not take prompt action, but that lapse cannot be ascribed to Defendant. At most, Defendant was neglectful in not following up. Mistakenly assuming an otherwise-qualified attorney will handle one's legal affairs is excusable neglect.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s motion is granted. Defendant is ordered to file his proposed responses separately within ten (10) days and reserve hearing dates as appropriate.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.