Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV29062, Date: 2025-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV29062    Hearing Date: February 20, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On November 29, 2023, Plaintiff Nicholas Camardo (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint for personal injuries arising from a car accident that allegedly occurred on February 9, 2023. On March 29, 2024, Defendant Jason Liwanag was personally served. Based on the date and method of service, Defendant’s responsive pleading was due by April 29, 2024. (Declaration of William Sanchez.) On September 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default, and the Court entered default the same day. In November 2024, Defendant’s counsel was retained. Defendant now moves the court to set aside default

CCP § 473 is applied liberally, particularly where the party in default moves promptly to seek relief and the opposing party will not suffer prejudice if relief is granted. “In such situations, ‘very slight evidence will be required to justify a court in setting aside a default.’” (Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 234.) “Because the law strongly favors trial and disposition on the merits, any doubt in applying section 473(b) must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default.” (Maynard v. Brandon (2005) 36 Cal.4th 364, 371-372, citing Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 233.) Unless inexcusable neglect is evident, the policy favoring trial on the merits prevails. (Tunis v. Barrow (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1069, 1079.)

Defendant declares that upon being served on March 29, 2024, he communicated the service of the Complaint through what he believed to be the proper channels for his insurance carrier to handle the matter on his behalf. However, he did not receive any updates and assumed the case was being addressed. Defendant states that he first learned of the default on September 5, 2024, after which he immediately contacted his insurance carrier and discovered that his carrier was unaware of his involvement in the case until after default had been entered.

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s conduct was extremely careless and not what a reasonably prudent person would have done under the circumstances. However, the Court disagrees. Defendant did not ignore the case entirely; he took steps to notify his insurance carrier but mistakenly used the wrong communication channel. The error was in the method of communication, not in failing to act altogether.

Upon learning on September 5, 2024, that default had been entered, Defendant immediately took corrective action. He contacted his insurance carrier. Shortly thereafter, Defendant’s insurance carrier retained legal counsel in November 2024. Defendant’s counsel promptly attempted to obtain a stipulation from Plaintiff’s counsel to set aside the default to avoid unnecessary motion practice. When Plaintiff’s counsel refused to stipulate, Defendant filed this motion on January 23, 2025, which is well within the six-month period required under CCP § 473(b). Furthermore, Plaintiff will not suffer prejudice, except for having to litigate the lawsuit on the merits, which is not the type of prejudice that the court considers.

Because of the strong policy favoring adjudication on the merits, relief under CCP § 473(b) is applied liberally, particularly when the party in default acts promptly to seek relief and the opposing party will not suffer prejudice. In such situations very slight evidence will be required to justify a court in setting aside the default and any doubts in applying section 473 must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default. (Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 234.)

Accordingly, the motion is granted. Defendant is ordered to file an Answer within 20 days of today's date.

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.