Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV27962, Date: 2025-06-06 Tentative Ruling

On September 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed the complaint arising from a motor vehicle collision that allegedly occurred on September 9, 2020. On May 6, 2024, Defendant Francis James Pittelli was served. On August 26, 2024, Defendant’s counsel requested a two-week extension to respond. Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to a one-week extension but filed a request for entry of default that same day. Despite multiple attempts by Defendant’s counsel between August 30 and October 23, 2024, to stipulate to set aside the default, Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond. A default judgment was entered on April 18, 2025, in the amount of $16,060. Defendant now moves the Court to set aside the judgment. Plaintiff did not file an opposition.

“The¿mandatory¿relief provision of section 473(b) is a “narrow exception to the discretionary relief provision for default judgments and¿dismissals.” [Citation.] Its purpose “‘was to alleviate the hardship on parties who¿lose their day in court¿due solely to an inexcusable failure to act on the part of their attorneys.’” [Citation.] An application for¿mandatory¿relief must be filed within six months of entry of judgment and be in proper form, accompanied by an attorney's sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. [Citation.] The defaulting party “must submit sufficient evidence that the default was actually caused by the attorney's error. [Citation.] ‘If the prerequisites for the application of the¿mandatory¿relief provision of section 473, subdivision (b) exist, the trial court does not have discretion to refuse relief.’” [Citation.]” (Henderson v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.¿(2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 215, 226.)

Defendant has met the requirements for mandatory relief. First, Defendant filed the present motion within six months of the judgment. Second, the default judgment falls within the narrow exception to discretionary relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). Third, the Court finds that Defendant has made a sufficient showing of inadvertence and neglect. Defendant’s counsel relied on an oral extension agreement with Plaintiff’s counsel to file an answer. However, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default on the same day. Thereafter, the parties engaged in settlement discussions and efforts to stipulate to vacate the judgment. Defendant’s counsel did not learn of the default judgment until after it had already been entered. Counsel further declares that Plaintiff’s request for default judgment did not appear on the court docket until after entry of judgment. Based on these circumstances, the Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated inadvertence and neglect sufficient to justify relief. The motion is granted. Defendant is ordered to serve a response to the complaint within 20 days of this order.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court