Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV40807, Date: 2024-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV40807    Hearing Date: December 6, 2024    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On November 5, 2021, Plaintiff Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Manuel C Carrillo (“Carrillo”), Myira Alejandra Figueroa (“Figueroa”), and Does 1-100 for subrogation and indebtedness. The complaint demanded $107,185.39. 

On December 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing substituted service of the summons, complaint, and other documents on Carrillo on December 2, 2021. 

On February 23, 2022, the clerk entered Carrillo’s default. 

On April 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing personal service of an amended summons, amendment to complaint, complaint, statement of damages, and other documents on Figueroa on April 23, 2023. 

On October 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request for Court judgment of $7,716.89 against Carrillo and Figueroa. The request was set for hearing on December 4, 2023. 

On October 9, 2023, the Court dismissed the Doe defendants without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. 

On October 23, 2023, the clerk entered Figueroa’s default. 

On December 4, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for default judgment and entered judgment of $7,716.89 against Carrillo and Figueroa.  The Court “assume[d] that Plaintiff intend[ed] to seek a judgment that is $100,000 less than the amount demanded in the complaint.” 

On March 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed an application to amend the judgment nunc pro tunc under Code of Civil Procedure section 473. Plaintiff argued the judgment amount of $7,716.89 was a “typographical error” and the Court should have entered judgment for $107,185.39.  Plaintiff did not set the application for hearing and the Court did not rule on it. 

On August 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the entry of judgment, citing the attorney fault provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b).  On October 23, 2024, the Court denied the motion, ruling it was untimely and the attorney fault provision did not apply because the judgment was not “against” the attorney’s client. 

On October 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the entry of default judgment.  The motion was set for hearing on December 6, 2024.  Defendants have not filed an opposition. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

Plaintiff asks the Court to vacate the judgment on equitable grounds. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

          “Apart from any statute, courts have the inherent authority to vacate a default and default judgment on equitable grounds such as extrinsic fraud or extrinsic mistake. (Bae v. T.D. Service Co. of Arizona (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 89, 97 (Bae), citing Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 981 (Rappleyea); Olivera v. Grace (1942) 19 Cal.2d 570, 575.) “ ‘Extrinsic fraud usually arises when a party is denied a fair adversary hearing because he has been “deliberately kept in ignorance of the action or proceeding, or in some other way fraudulently prevented from presenting his claim or defense.” ’ ” (Ibid., quoting Kulchar v. Kulchar (1969) 1 Cal.3d 467, 471 (Kulchar ).)  “In contrast, the term ‘extrinsic mistake’ is ‘broadly applied when circumstances extrinsic to the litigation have unfairly cost a party a hearing on the merits. [Citations.] “Extrinsic mistake is found when [among other things] ... a mistake led a court to do what it never intended....” ’ ” (Id. at pp. 97-98, quoting Rappleyea, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 981.) 

A party may file a motion seeking equitable relief from a default and default judgment “ ‘even though the statutory period [for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b)] has run.’ ” (Bae, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 98, quoting County of San Diego v. Gorham (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1229.) 

To set aside a default judgment based on extrinsic mistake, the defaulted party must show (1) it has a meritorious case, (2) a satisfactory excuse for not presenting a defense, and (3) diligence in seeking to set aside the default once the defaulted party discovered it.  (Bae, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 100.) 

Plaintiff argues that its attorney made a “clerical error” by requesting a default judgment of $7,716.89 rather than $107,185.39 and Plaintiff made prompt efforts to correct the judgment. 

The Court concludes that Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements for setting aside the default judgment.  The Court exercises its equitable power to set aside the default judgment. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS the motion of Plaintiff Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company to vacate the default judgment entered on December 4, 2023. 

The Court sets an Order to Show Cause re: Failure to Apply for Entry of Default Judgment on February 6, 2025. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.