Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV03751, Date: 2024-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV03751    Hearing Date: November 7, 2024    Dept: C

PANGILINAN v. RUTLEDGE

CASE NO.:  23NWCV03751

HEARING:  11/07/24

#7

     I.        Defendants SMOOTH SAILING CONSULTING, LLC; DARIUS RUTLEDGE; and JENNIFER JANE SANCHEZ’s Motions to Set Aside Defaults are GRANTED.

    II.        Defendants SMOOTH SAILING CONSULTING, LLC; DARIUS RUTLEDGE; and JENNIFER JANE SANCHEZ’s Motions to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint are DENIED without prejudice.

  III.        Defendants are ORDERED to file and serve Answers or Responsive Pleadings by no later than 5 days from the date of the Court’s issuance of this Order.

Moving Party to give notice.

Defaults were entered against Defendants SMOOTH SAILING CONSULTING, LLC and DARIUS RUTLEDGE on February 2, 2014, and against Defendant JENNIFER JANE SANCHEZ on February 14, 2024.

The instant motions to quash service of summons and set aside and vacate default were filed on June 20, 2024. 

“The court may, upon any terms as may be just, 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. Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” (CCP § 473, subd. (b).)

Defendants argue that the defaults should be set aside, and service quashed for the following reasons:

·        The POS identifies that the Summons and Complaint were served on Defendant Smooth Sailing Consulting LLC on December 22, 2023, but was not served properly either on the Agent for Service of Process or any authorized person. “The address identified on the filed Proof of Service was no longer good as Defendants had moved about 2 months prior.”

·        Service as to Defendants Jennifer Jane Sanchez and Darius Rutledge was improper because the documents were improperly left in the bushes with water damage.

The policy of hearing cases on their merits is well-established. (See, e.g., Berman v. Klassman (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 900.) Given the liberality associated with Motions to Set Aside Defaults, the Court finds the declarations of Jennifer Jane Sanchez and Darius Rutledge are sufficient to warrant to relief. The law favors trials on the merits. (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 980.) The Court finds adequate grounds to allow Defendants the opportunity to defend themselves on the merits of this action.

The Motions to set aside the defaults of Smooth Sailing Consulting, LLC; Darius Rutledge; and Jennifer Jane Sanchez are GRANTED.

However, the Court declines to rule on the motions to quash because defendants were still in default when the motions were filed.  While in default, the Court lost jurisdiction to address any action by the defaulted defendants other than a motion to vacate entry of default. (See, e.g. W.A. Rose Co. v. Municipal Court for Oakland-Piedmont Judicial Dist. (1959) 176 Cal.App.2d 67, 72.) “[T]he entry of the default terminates [the defaulting defendant’s] rights to take any further affirmative steps in the litigation until either the default is set aside or a default judgment is entered.” (City of Riverside v. Horspool (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 670, 681.) Consequently, the Court declines to render a substantive ruling on Defendants’ motions to quash. 

The motions to quash are DENIED without prejudice.