Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 21STLC02884, Date: 2024-02-20 Tentative Ruling

*** Please Note that the Judicial Officer Presiding in Department 25 is Commissioner Latrice A. G. Byrdsong ***
If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time. 

Case Number: 21STLC02884    Hearing Date: February 20, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Tuesday, February 20, 2024

Case Name:                             CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER v. JODIE ROLAND; and DOES 1 to 25, Inclusive.

Case No.:                                21STLC02884

Motion:                                   Motion to Vacate Judgment Entered Against Defendant Jodie Roland on September 20, 2022

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff City of Los Angeles acting by and through the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:                    Plaintiff City of Los Angeles’s Motion to Vacate Judgment Entered Against Defendant Jodie Roland is DENIED.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                      OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                      OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                       OK 

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of February 05, 2024                [   ] Late          [X] None 

REPLY:                     None filed as of February 09, 2024                [   ] Late          [X] None 

BACKGROUND

On April 12, 2021, City of Los Angeles acting by and through the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (“Plaintiff”) filed three causes of action against Jodie Roland (“Defendant”) for 1) Account stated, 2) Book Account and 3) Goods and Services Rendered.

            On January 07, 2022, Plaintiff requested for entry of default against Defendant. The Clerk entered default against Defendant the same day.

            The Court entered default judgement against Defendant for $9,658.22 on September 20, 2022. Plaintiff served Defendant with Notice of Entry of Judgment on July 05, 2023.

            On January 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Vacate Judgment Entered Against Defendant Jodie Roland on September 20, 2022.

            No opposition has been filed.  

MOVING PARTY POSITION

Plaintiff prays for the Court to enter an order vacating the default judgment entered on September 20, 2022. Plaintiff contends that it was unaware that Defendant had previously filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and that bankruptcy was discharged on August 10, 2020. Plaintiff asserts that had it been aware of the bankruptcy discharge, it would not have filed a complaint.

OPPOSITION

            No opposition has been filed.

REPLY

            No reply has been filed.

ANALYSIS

I.          Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure, section 473, subdivision (b), “[t]he 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.”  An application for relief must be made no more than six months after entry of the order from which relief is sought and must be accompanied by an affidavit of fault attesting to the moving party’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b); English v. IKON Business Solutions (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 130, 143.) Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made 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).) 

“It is the policy of the law to favor, wherever possible, a hearing on the merits, and appellate courts are much more disposed to affirm an order where the result is to compel a trial upon the merits than they are when the judgment by default is allowed to stand, and it appears that a substantial defense could be made. Stated another way, 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 the case, attempts to take advantage of the mistake, surprise, inadvertence, or neglect of his adversary.” (Weitz v. Yankosky (1966) 63 Cal.2d 849, 854–855.) 

II.        Discussion

Plaintiff provides the Court with the declaration of its counsel, who states that Defendant filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy on April 30, 2020. (Evan Georgoulis Decl. ¶ 6.) Defendant’s bankruptcy was discharged on August 10, 2020. (Id.) Counsel swears that no one ever notified him about the bankruptcy and so, he was unaware of the bankruptcy at the time the complaint was filed. Counsel further declares that he did not become aware of the bankruptcy until November 06, 2023.

The Court finds the motion to be improper. Here, Plaintiff does not provide the Court with any authority or, better yet, a joint stipulation from the parties setting aside the default. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(a) provides that a notice of motion must state, in the opening paragraph, the nature of the order sought and the grounds for issuance. (CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.1110(a).) Here, the Court notes that Plaintiff provides no grounds for setting aside the default judgment. Plaintiff instead prays for the Court to vacate the default judgment since Defendant previously filed bankruptcy. This would not be proper under rule 3.1110(a) because Plaintiff needs to provide the Court with relevant authority to grant the relief it seeks.  Moreover, the Court has not been advised of the Defendant’s bankruptcy case through case number reference or otherwise to confirm the date of such bankruptcy and discharge, as well as the application of discharge to Plaintiff’s judgment in this matter. 

            Accordingly, for the foregoing reason the Motion is DENIED.

III.       Conclusion

            Plaintiff City of Los Angeles’s Motion to Vacate Judgment Entered Against Defendant Jodie Roland is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice