Judge Layne H. Melzer, Case 2022-01269084 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Layne H. Melzer, Case: 2022-01269084, Date: 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Hormel Foods Corporation
1. Claim of Exemption - Levy
Defendant Maggie Zhang
2. Motion to Set Aside/Vacate

(1)MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT

Judgment Debtor Maggie Zhang’s motion to vacate the default judgment entered on 10/6/22 is granted.

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Defendant/Judgment Debtor failed to file proofs of service with her moving papers and reply declaration.

CRC, Rule 3.1300(c) requires that proofs of service be filed no later than five court days before the hearing. Because Plaintiff filed an opposition, it can be presumed that it received, at least the moving papers. Nonetheless, Defendant is instructed to comply with the Rules of Court for all future filings.

Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b) permits a court to grant relief from a judgment, dismissal, order or other proceeding taken against a party on the grounds of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.” Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b) provides for two types of relief. (Leader v. Health Industries of Am., Inc. (2001) 89 Cal. App. 4^th 603, 615.) A court may grant discretionary relief upon the moving party’s showing of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. (Id. at 615-616.)

The law favors judgments on the merits. Thus, on a motion for relief from default, “doubts must be resolved in favor of relief, with an order denying relief scrutinized [on appeal] more carefully than an order granting it.” (Lasalle v. Vogel (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 127, 134, 248 CR3d 263, 268 (emphasis in original).)

The party moving for relief on the basis of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” must show specific facts demonstrating that one of these conditions was met. (Hopkins & Carley v. Gens (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1410 (defendant's burden to demonstrate “that due to some mistake, either of fact or of law, of himself or of his counsel, or through some inadvertence, surprise or neglect which may properly be considered excusable, the judgment or order from which he seeks relief should be reversed” (emphasis in original; internal quotes omitted).)

Defendant declares she did not timely file a response to Plaintiff’s Complaint because she was served only with the Complaint, and not the Summons indicating a time to respond to the Complaint. She also states that she thought the court would mail her a notice to appear in court and provide evidence. She was waiting for this when she got the judgment. (Zhang Decl., ¶ 1.) Additionally, Plaintiff declares that she thought she had settled the dispute with Plaintiff as she signed a settlement agreement resolving the dispute for $19,141.45. However, after, she received a revised agreement signed by Plaintiff for $22,000. (Zhang Decl., ¶ 2, Exs. B, C.)

Defendant has set forth adequate facts demonstrating that she made a mistake as to her obligation to file response to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Defendant has included a proposed answer, as is required by Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b).

As a result, the motion is granted, and Defendant is ordered to file and serve her answer no later than 5/31/23 pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2)CLAIM OF EXEMPTION

The hearing on Judgment Debtor Maggie Zhang’s Claim of Exemption is moot based on the ruling on her motion to vacate the default judgment, above.

The clerk will give notice of both rulings.