Judge: Linda S. Marks, Case: 2021-01235437, Date: 2022-11-28 Tentative Ruling

1. Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default filed by C2 Educational Systems, Inc. A Virginia Corporation on 7/26/22
2. Case Management Conference

This action was filed on 12/9/21. Default was entered on 3/8/22. (ROA 14). Defendant filed the instant motion on 7/26/22. (ROA 25).

The motion is brought pursuant to CCP §473(b), which provides in pertinent part: “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.”

In the absence of an “attorney affidavit of fault,” the burden is on the moving party to show that the neglect was excusable: i.e., that the default could not have been avoided through the exercise of ordinary care. (Jackson v. Bank of America (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 55, 58.)

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.)

Based upon the declarations provided by Defendant, this court finds that Defendant’s failure to appear in the action was a result of mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect. The motion was brought within approximately four months after default was entered, which is within the six month limit. A copy of the proposed answer accompanies the motion. (See Exh. A to Woo Decl.).

Tentative Ruling: Defendant C2 Education System, Inc.’s Motion to Vacate Entry of Default is granted. Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees and costs is denied.

Plaintiff contends that if the motion is granted, Plaintiff should be reimbursed for its attorney fees and costs incurred in preparing its application for entry of monetary judgment (filed on 5/18/22) in the sum of $9,808.50. Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees and costs is DENIED. Plaintiff has provided no evidence to substantiate the dollar amount requested. Further, the court finds, based on the evidence submitted by the parties, that the imposition of a fee and cost award is not appropriate.