Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 21STLC03938, Date: 2023-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC03938    Hearing Date: November 1, 2023    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Wednesday, November 1, 2023

Case Name:                             State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Satia Corner

Case No.:                                21STLC03938

Motion:                                   Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

Recommended Ruling:           Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Set Aside/Vacate the Default Judgment entered on 05/17/2023 is GRANTED.  This action is now DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

BACKGROUND

On May 20, 2021, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company filed a subrogation action against Defendant Satia Corner.

On August 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), adding Edwin Secaida Jr as another defendant. The FAC alleges that Yoselin Gaxiola had a policy of insurance with Plaintiff, covering the damages that are the subject of this action. Plaintiff paid the claim to the insured as required by the policy. Plaintiff now seeks subrogation of its payment from Defendant in the amount of $17,981.84.

On May 17, 2023, default judgments were entered against Defendants.

On July 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to set aside judgment, set aside default, and dismiss. On September 20, 2023, the Court continued the hearing to November 1, 2023. To date, no opposition has been filed.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

On May 17, 2023, a default judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants in the amount of $20,875.09. Subsequently, upon Plaintiff serving notice of the entry of judgment, the parties met and conferred, thereafter agreeing upon a settlement of the matter. Plaintiff now seeks to set aside the judgment and entry of default entered in this matter and then dismiss the matter with prejudice

 OPPOSITION

None.

REPLY

None.

ANALYSIS

I.          Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment

A.                Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure, section 187 states: “[w]hen jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or this Code, or by any other statute, conferred on a Court or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of this jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this code.” “Section 187 contemplates amending a judgment by noticed motion. [Citations.] The court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing on a motion to amend a judgment, but may rule on the motion based solely on declarations and other written evidence. [Citation.]” (Highland Springs Conference & Training Center v. City of Banning (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 267, 280.) “In the interests of justice, the ‘‘‘greatest liberality is to be encouraged’’’ in the allowance of amendments brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 187. [Citation.]” (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Weinberg (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1, 7.) 

B.                 Analysis

On May 17, 2023, a default judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants in the amount of $20,875.09. Subsequently, upon Plaintiff serving notice of the entry of judgment, the parties met and conferred, thereafter agreeing upon a settlement of the matter. (Reese Decl. ¶¶ 3-5.) Plaintiff requests that the Court set aside the judgment and entry of default entered in this matter and then dismiss the matter with prejudice. “In the exercise of equitable jurisdiction the court undoubtedly has broad discretionary powers to take whatever action is necessary in the interests of justice in order that its decrees will not fail to accomplish their purpose.” (Del Riccio v. Superior Court of Cal., in and for Los Angeles County (1952) 115 Cal.App.2d 29, 31.) The Court finds that setting aside default and dismissing the case is in the interests of justice. “The strong policy favoring settlement of litigation supports [this] conclusion.” (In re Marriage of Assemi (1994) 7 Cal.4th 896, 910.)

III.       Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Set Aside/Vacate the Default Judgment entered on 05/14/2023 is GRANTED.  The action is dismissed with prejudice.