TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Bristol Capital Ventures LLC’s Motion to Set Aside Default is GRANTED.

Defendant Golden State Water Company’s Motion to Compel Further Deposition Answers by Plaintiff Carlos Lopez is GRANTED.

Moving parties to give notice. 

REASONING

Defendant Bristol Capital Ventures, LLC’s Motion to Set Aside Default

Defendant Bristol Capital Ventures, LLC (“Bristol”) moves the Court for an order setting aside the default entered against it on the ground that it failed to timely file a responsive pleading to the complaint due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Bristol has provided a copy of its proposed pleading with the motion. (Mot., Ex. A.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), provides that “[t]he court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party . . . from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Where a motion to set aside a default is based on a party’s mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, relief is discretionary, and Bristol must provide specific facts demonstrating a mistake, either of fact or of law. (See Hopkins & Carley v. Gens (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1410.)

The proof of service filed on November 29, 2023 shows that Bristol was served by substituted service on the agent for service of process on November 27, 2023, with documents also mailed, and Bristol’s default was entered on April 30, 2024. In the present motion, filed on June 21, 2024, Bristol states that this claim was forwarded to its insurance carrier, Travelers, on May 6, 2024, after default had already been entered, and Bristol provides a conclusory statement that the failure to timely respond to the pleading was due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Mot., Torres Decl. ¶¶ 3, 8.) The motion contains no further information to support that statement. In a supplemental declaration filed on September 23, 2024, Bristol states that Beverly Management was served with this complaint on November 23, 2023; Beverly Management is an affiliate of Bristol; when Beverly Management was served, the property manager who received the process of service was preparing to leave her position for another company; and, as a result of the property manager leaving, the complaint was overlooked, and Bristol missed the window to provide a timely response. (Torres Supplemental Decl. ¶¶ 3-6.)

While Bristol’s motion papers are insufficient to show mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, the supplemental declaration tends to indicate that Bristol seeks relief based on excusable neglect, i.e., that Bristol lost track of the papers due to the property manager leaving the company. The supplemental declaration misstates the date of service, but the Court understands this as typographical error, and the Court finds that Bristol’s representations that the complaint was overlooked due to a property manager’s departure sufficiently states excusable neglect. In so ruling, the Court notes that policy favors judgments on the merits, and “doubts must be resolved in favor of relief.” (Lasalle v. Vogel (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 127, 134, emphasis omitted.) For this reason, Defendant Bristol Capital Ventures LLC’s Motion to Set Aside Default is GRANTED.

Defendant Golden State Water Company’s Motion to Compel Further Deposition Answers by Plaintiff Carlos Lopez

Defendant Golden State Water Company (“GSWC”) moves the Court for an order compelling further deposition answers by Plaintiff Carlos Lopez (“Plaintiff”) on the ground that Plaintiff refused to respond to questions regarding his prior felony conviction for forgery at the direction of counsel, and evidence of this conviction and the factual underpinnings are presumptively admissible for evaluation of Plaintiff’s credibility by the trier of fact, i.e., the information is discoverable and not protected by any privacy interest. Plaintiff argues that the probative value of the felony details is virtually nonexistent, as the conviction bears no logical relationship to Defendant’s alleged negligence, and the potential prejudice is profound, as a felony conviction carries a stigma that could unfairly influence the jury.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480, subdivision (a), provides that where “a deponent fails to answer any question” in a deposition, “the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer . . . .” “If the court determines that the answer . . . sought is subject to discovery, it shall order that the answer be given . . . on the resumption of the deposition.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (i).)

It is undisputed that Plaintiff admitted to having been convicted of felony forgery. (Mot., King Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 1.) Defense counsel then asked Plaintiff about the conviction at his deposition, and when counsel asked about the nature of the forgery, Plaintiff’s counsel objected on the ground that the inquiry violated Plaintiff’s right to privacy. (Mot., King Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 2.)

Evidence Code section 788 states that “[f]or the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, it may be shown by the examination of the witness or by the record of the judgment that he has been convicted of a felony,” subject to certain limitations not applicable here. In People v. Dalton (2019) 7 Cal.5th 166, 214, the California Supreme Court stated that “[e]vidence of circumstances underlying a conviction is admissible to impeach credibility if the proponent demonstrates that the evidence has ‘any tendency in reason’ to disprove credibility,” but the trial court retains discretion to exclude this evidence “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will [] necessitate undue consumption of time or [] create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.”

The Court finds that Plaintiff is required to respond to the questions at issue, as the evidence sought is likely admissible to impeach Plaintiff’s credibility, and the Court is not convinced that its admission has a substantial danger of undue prejudice. Insofar as Plaintiff argues that the questions are irrelevant, Evidence Code section 788 makes this information relevant to a credibility determination. The Court notes that this does not relieve GWSC of a duty to show that the evidence has a tendency to disprove Plaintiff’s credibility, i.e., the evidence must be connected to Plaintiff’s credibility in some way, or it will not be admitted at trial. While Plaintiff may be prejudiced, the probative value of this evidence outweighs the potential prejudice if GWSC is able to connect the conviction to Plaintiff’s credibility at trial. For these reasons, Defendant Golden State Water Company’s Motion to Compel Further Deposition Answers by Plaintiff Carlos Lopez is GRANTED.