Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STLC07125, Date: 2024-05-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC07125    Hearing Date: May 21, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Tuesday, May 21, 2024

Case Name:                             DIAZ v. SASSON, et al.

Case No.:                                23STLC07125

Motion:                                   Set Aside/Vacate Default Entered on 02/06/2024 and Default Judgment Entered on 02/26/2024

Moving Party:                         Defendant Joseph Sasson as Trustee of the Joseph and Rosalae Sasson Trust

Responding Party:                   Plaintiff Alejandro Diaz

Notice:                                    OK

 

 

Recommended Ruling:           Defendant Joseph Sasson as Trustee of the Joseph and Rosalae Sasson Trust’s Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment is GRANTED.

 

The default entered on February 6, 2024, and the default judgment entered on February 26, 2024 are hereby set aside and vacated. 

 

Defendant Joseph Sasson as Trustee of the Joseph and Rosalae Sasson Trust’s Answer filed on February 23, 2024, is hereby accepted as the responsive pleading, and deemed to be the answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

 

Trial in this action is reset for May 6, 2025, at 8:30 a.m.in Department 25 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

 

Parties must comply with the trial requirements as set forth in the court's Third Amended Standing Order for Limited Civil Cases (effective February 24, 2020).

All trial documents are to be electronically filed at least ten (10) days prior to the trial date.

Parties should be prepared to submit a JOINT Trial Readiness Binder / Exhibit Binder, and to personally appear on the date of trial.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

On November 7, 2023, Plaintiff Alejandro Diaz (“Plaintiff”), filed a Complaint against Defendants Joseph Sasson as Trustee of the Joseph and Rosalae Sasson Trust; SAVC, LLC; James Reifenberg aka James C. Reifenberg (“Defendants”); and DOES 1-10, alleging a sole cause of action for Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act – Civil Code section 51.

 

On February 6, 2024, this Court entered default against Joseph Sasson as Trustee of the Joseph and Rosalae Sasson Trust (“Sasson”).

 

On February 26, 2024, this Court entered default judgment against Defendant Sasson for $5,133.75 consisting of $4,000.00 in damages, $800.00 in attorney fees, and $333.75 in costs.

 

On March 14, 2024, Rosalae Sasson filed the instant Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment. On March 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On April 2, 2024, Rosalae Sasson filed a reply.

 

On April 16, 2024, this Court continued the motion hearing to permit Defendant Sasson to serve and file supplemental briefing addressing Defendant Sasson’s standing to bring this motion and authority for non-party Rosalae Sasson to bring this motion.

 

On April 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a supplemental opposition. On April 26, 2024, Defendant Sasson filed a supplemental declaration in support of the motion.

 

 

 

 

 

MOVING PARTY POSITION

 

            Rosalae Sasson moves for an order setting aside default entered on February 6, 2024, and default judgment entered on February 26, 2024. The motion is made on the grounds of inadvertence, surprise, mistake, or excusable neglect.

 

The supplemental declaration submitted by Defendant Sasson states his wife, Rosalae Sasson (Mrs. Sasson) is the co-Trustee to the Joseph and Rosalae Sasson Trust. Furthermore, Mrs. Sasson has co-equal power over the Trust and the property subject to the complaint is owned by the Trust not by Defendant Sasson or Mrs. Sasson as individuals. Moreover, Mrs. Sasson generally handles legal matters relating to the Trust and its property, and the day-to-day management of the Trust assets. Similarly, Defendant Sasson states Mrs. Sasson was handling this present matter on behalf of the Trust. Likewise, Mrs. Sasson informed Defendant Sasson she contacted Plaintiff’s attorney and their tenant who operates a bar on the premises concerning the allegations in the complaint. Mrs. Sasson informed Plaintiff’s attorney that there was no record of Plaintiff being at the bar and believed the matter had been resolved. Mrs. Sasson also informed Defendant Sasson that the matter had been resolved. As such, Defendant Sasson and Mrs. Sasson mistakenly believed the case was resolved, did not get their attorney involved, and only contacted their attorney when they learned Plaintiff’s counsel intended to move forward with the lawsuit.

 

OPPOSITION

 

            In Supplemental Opposition, Plaintiff argues neither he nor his attorney ever represented to Defendant Sasson or Mrs. Sasson that the matter had been taken care of or resolved. As such, Plaintiff contends Defendant Sasson and Mrs. Sasson’s assumption that the case was resolved is unreasonable. Furthermore, Plaintiff argues it is abuse of discretion to set aside default where a defendant with full knowledge of the proceedings fails to take action to protect their interests until after the default. Plaintiff also asserts the trial court does not have authority to set aside the default simply because the defendant did not realize the legal effect of failing to file an Answer. Additionally, Plaintiff asserts the acts which brought about the default must have been the acts of a reasonably prudent person under the same circumstances. Finally, Plaintiff contends the summons served on Defendant Sasson explicitly warned him that he had thirty (30) days to file his response or he may lose the case by default, thus his choice to ignore the lawsuit was voluntary and not an act of a reasonably prudent person.

 

REPLY

 

            No sur-reply was filed by Defendant Sasson or Mrs. Sasson.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANALYSIS

 

 

I. Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment

A.    Legal Standard

Pursuant the Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), 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 Code of Civil Procedure, Section 473(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”]). “The six-month limit is mandatory; a court has no authority to grant relief under section 473, subdivision (b), unless an application is made within the six-month period.”  (Arambula v. Union Carbide Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 333, 340, citations omitted.)

B.  Discussion

Here, the motion to set aside/vacate default and default judgment is timely because it was filed a few weeks after default judgment was entered against Defendant Sasson. Furthermore, Defendant Sasson has demonstrated that he as the named party in this action and Mrs. Sasson, as a non-party to this action have standing to bring the instant motion because the complaint concerns property that belong to their Trust, they are co-Trustees of the Trust and Mrs. Sasson handles all legal matters related to the Trust. Moreover, both Defendant Sasson and Mrs. Sasson attest that default and subsequently default judgment was entered against Defendant Sasson in this present matter due to their mistaken belief that Mrs. Sasson had informally resolved the issue. Specifically, Mrs. Sasson believed due to her informing Plaintiff’s attorney that the bar manager found no record of Plaintiff being on the premises on the date alleged in the complaint, that the matter would not be moving forward.

Although Plaintiff contends this is not a choice that a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances would make and thus insufficient to show inadvertence or mistake by Defendant Sasson and Mrs. Sasson, the law liberally construes Code of Civil Procedure section 473 so that cases are disposed of on the merits. (Ramsey Trucking Co. v. Mitchell (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d Supp. 862, 865.) In light of that standard, a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances could assume that providing information negating a major part of an underlying claim would put the other party on notice that no actual dispute exists for the case to proceed. Also, Defendant Sasson relied on Mrs. Sasson’s representations that the matter was resolved as she is the person who handled all legal matters for the Trust, despite not being a named party to the case.

Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant Sasson’s default and default judgment was entered against him due to mistaken belief.

II.        Conclusion

           

            Accordingly, Defendant Joseph Sasson as Trustee of the Joseph and Rosalae Sasson Trust’s Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment  is GRANTED.  The default entered on February 6, 2024 and the default judgment entered on February 26, 2024 are hereby set aside and vacated. 

           

            Defendant Joseph Sasson as Trustee of the Joseph and Rosalae Sasson Trust’s Answer filed on February 23, 2024, is hereby accepted as the responsive pleading, and deemed to be the answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

 

            Trial in this action is reset for May 6, 2025, at 8:30 a.m.in Department 25 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

 

Parties must comply with the trial requirements as set forth in the court's Third Amended Standing Order for Limited Civil Cases (effective February 24, 2020).

 

All trial documents are to be electronically filed at least ten (10) days prior to the trial date.

 

Parties should be prepared to submit a JOINT Trial Readiness Binder / Exhibit Binder, and to personally appear on the date of trial.

  

            Moving party is ordered to give notice.