Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV01440, Date: 2023-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV01440    Hearing Date: October 26, 2023    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:  Michael Te v. Tesla, Inc.

Motion to Set Aside Default Against Tesla, Inc. Under CCP 473B (Mandatory Relief Provision) 

TENTATIVE RULING

            The Court GRANTS the motion to set aside default. 

            Defendant is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.

BACKGROUND

This is a products liability case. On May 11, 2023, Plaintiff Michael Te (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendant Tesla, Inc. (Defendant) for products liability and general negligence. On July 31, 2023, Plaintiff obtained entry of default against Defendant. 

On September 28, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion to set aside default. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. 

LEGAL STANDARD

“T]he 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 made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken. …” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) 

A mistake is a basis for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), when by reason of the mistake a defendant failed to make a timely response. (G. Relief from Default, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 5-G.) Surprise occurs when a Defendant is unexpectedly placed in a position to his injury without any negligence of his own. (Credit Managers Association of California v. National Independent Business Alliance (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 1166, 1173.) Excusable neglect is a basis for relief when the defendant has shown some reasonable excuse for the default. (Davis v. Thayer (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 892, 905.) Under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating an excusable ground, such as fraud or mistake, justifying a court’s vacating a judgment. (Basinger v. Roger & Wells (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 16, 23-24.) 

DISCUSSION

Analysis

            Plaintiff obtained entry of default against Defendant on July 31, 2023. Defendant filed the instant motion to set aside default on September 28, 2023, which is well within the six-month time limit for motions to set aside under Code of Civil Procedure section 437, subdivision (b). (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) Therefore, Defendant’s motion is timely. 

            Defendant indicates that its internal legal department inadvertently overlooked the need to file a responsive pleading due in part to Defendant having initially attempted to resolve this dispute informally. (Buccieri Decl., ¶¶ 5-7.) Defendant’s internal legal department failed to follow up on the status of the informal dispute resolution efforts, and therefore failed to file the responsive pleading. (Buccieri Decl., ¶ 7.) The Court finds this explanation to be satisfactory evidence of excusable neglect. Additionally, the Court construes Plaintiff’s lack of opposition to this motion as a tacit admission that it is meritorious. (Holden v. City of San Diego (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 504, 418; C. Opposing the Motion—and Rebutting the Opposition, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 9(I)-C, ¶¿9:105.10.) 

           Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to set aside default. The Court finds that the facts set forth in the declaration also qualify for discretionary relief under CCP 473. Therefore, no sanctions are being awarded to Plaintiff.

CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS the motion to set aside default. 

           Defendant is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.